Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Imprisonment of a Member

Mr. Speaker: I have received a letter from the resident magistrate of the Belfast petty sessions informing me that Mr. Peter Robinson, the hon. Member for Belfast, East, has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 30 days. I shall cause the text of the letter to be published in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.

Following is the letter:
Dear Mr. Speaker
Peter Robinson, Member of Parliament for Belfast, East was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 8 December 1987 of using a mechanically propelled vehicle without a licence under the Vehicles (Excise) Act (NI) 1972 contrary to Section 8(1) of the said Act. I fined him £75 ordered him to pay arrears of duty of £100 and £3 for costs within 28 days.
As those sums have not been paid Mr. Robinson was today committed to Prison for a period of 30 days.
F. G. Harty
Resident Magistrate

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords]

SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Air Traffic (Safety)

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority on the safety regulations for flights over London, Glasgow and Manchester.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): The regulation of air safety is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. The chairman keeps me informed on important issues.

Mr. Wray: Does the Secretary of State agree that we have had two near misses in the past fortnight and 365 near misses since 1986? Obviously, many complaints have been made to the Civil Aviation Authority, and air traffic controllers have complained about the reporting system. Does the Secretary of State agree that the skies have become like the A74, in that they are overcrowded, and will he consider extending the vertical and horizontal space?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that in recent years the number of risk-bearing air misses for commercial air transport has been decreasing, not increasing. That is important. We must not be complacent, but nor must we overreact. It is : 

Mr. Higgins: I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, but is he satisfied that everything is being done to encourage the reporting of these events so that we have reliable statistics? On the question of capacity, is there not an argument for having more routes, especially across the Channel, so that traffic can be more widely spread? In particular, will my right hon. Friend investigate the restrictions placed by the Ministry of Defence on Channel flying?

Mr. Channon: As my right hon. Friend knows, he and I are in discussion with the Ministry of Defence about that latter point. I do not want to raise his hopes, but obviously we shall investigate that.
It is important that the House should understand the procedures. The CAA chairman has initiated discussions of the air miss reporting and investigation system and he has invited my officials to participate. It is an extremely sensible idea and I hope that the House will welcome it.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Secretary of State accept that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party was not being alarmist when he last raised this matter on 8 February? Does he accept that we are seeking a proper investigation into what is going on? One does not want to be alarmist, but I, too, fly regularly up to and down from Scotland — [Interruption.] Flying frightens the living daylights out of me. Many people are seriously worried. If there is so much traffic in the south-east, why does the Secretary of State not accept that more planes should fly out of Prestwick, for example?

Mr. Channon: I am longing for more planes to fly out of Prestwick and every other provincial aerodrome, including Scottish ones. The more traffic that can be encouraged to do that, the better. I think that that is common ground between us. I hope the hon. Lady realises that the number of near misses on the form of transport that she is now using is going down, not up. That is the point that I must make the House understand. With respect, her right hon. Friend's speech last autumn— I cannot understand why people keep referring to it—was alarmist and irresponsible and did not take these factors into account.

Mr. McCrindle: With the incident over Essex at the weekend coming only two weeks after he announced an inquiry into the severe air miss of a couple of weeks ago, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the range of that inquiry within his Department to include the more recent incident? Taking our cue from him, and trying to keep a balance between those who wish to be alarmist and those who wish to be complacent, may we ask whether the time is not on the horizon when individual inquiries into individual incidents should be replaced by an inquiry into the whole issue of air traffic control, so as to bring some sort of reassurance to the many who fly and those who live under flight paths?

Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's views, and I listened to what he said this morning. The present signs are that the incident to which he referred was not a risk-bearing air miss — I told the House why a few moments ago. It is the chief inspector, not I—I have no power to change this without legislation—who by law decides what the AAIB is to investigate. It is right that he should not be under political pressure from Ministers. An inspector's investigation of the incident over Lydd on 6

February is under way. Any safety recommendations that emerge about air traffic control systems from the investigation will be reported to the CAA without delay.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does it not make matters worse for the south-east that large numbers of northerners must still travel down to Heathrow and Gatwick to reach destinations abroad for which there should be scheduled services from Manchester? What recent action has the right hon. Gentleman taken further to develop the regional airports?

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone—we discussed it recently—that there are now a substantial number of new international destinations from Manchester. I hope that we shall have formal discussions with the Americans before long. I am at one with the right hon. Gentleman in wanting opportunities for Manchester airport, and many other provincial airports, to expand. That will be good in itself and will help to ease congestion in London.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to differentiate between reported air misses and risk-bearing air misses? It is clear from what he said that it is four times safer to fly today, in terms of reported air misses, than it was 10 years ago. Following on from what he said about risk-bearing air misses, the figure for 1986 was only 16, while the figure for 1977 was 45. There again, there has been a massive improvement. Does he agree that it is wholly inconsistent with the dedication and skill of air traffic controllers for a small minority of that profession to try to make political capital out of the present circumstances?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the right point, especially in the first part of his question. Trends in risk-bearing air misses have been markedly downwards in recent years. That is precisely the point. I hope the House realises that, as a result of that, air journeys in the London area have been proved safer in recent years than they were in the past.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister realise that many flights from the three main regional airports, Glasgow, Manchester and Belfast, do not leave on time because of chaos in London? Even if they leave on time, they cannot land because of chaos there. As one-hour flights now require one and a half hours, will the Secretary of State stop passing the buck to the Civil Aviation Authority and accept the responsibility for the increasing chaos at London airports?

Mr. Channon: I am not passing the buck. The CAA has the statutory duty by law, as passed by this House. That is why I must reiterate where the statutory duty lies. I am considering a number of points about Belfast flights which concern the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
As for the general issue of delays at airports, the most important duty must be for the CAA and controllers at airports to ensure that safety is paramount, even if it causes delay from time to time.

Mr. Jessel: May I remind my right hon. Friend that there has been no major crash at Heathrow since about 1972? As there are 300,000 flights per year, that is a very impressive record. However, near misses are alarming for people beneath the flight path and I hope that the inquiry will be extremely thorough.

Mr. Channon: I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the large number of flights from Heathrow and the very good safety record there. That is why I urge the House to understand what is going on and to appreciate the extraordinary good record of pilots and air traffic controllers, all of whom ought to be congratulated.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister not recognise that he has become so complacent at the Dispatch Box that he has degenerated into using claptrap? What on earth is a non-risk-bearing air miss? If it is not risky, why is it reported? To talk like that does not help the situation one little bit. The time has come for the Secretary of State to get all the interested parties together to have a proper investigation into air safety. The Secretary of State may think that people are not worried, but I can tell him that they are, and that they will be especially worried at Easter when there will be much more traffic in the air than there is now.

Mr. Channon: Untypically, the hon. Gentleman has asked a ridiculous question. All incidents and sightings should be reported, whether they contain a risk or are non-risk bearing. Preliminary indications in the incident at the weekend are that there was not a risk. Quite rightly, air statistics have been compiled like this for a great many years, including the years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. I cannot understand why he makes that ridiculous attack.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that within controlled air space aircraft in a position where they ought not to be should properly be reported by other aircraft using the same air space? In that situation there is not necessarily any risk, but it comes into the category of an air miss. It is unfortunate that Opposition Members do not understand the difference between the genuine concern about what ought to be done and the fact that there is a need, perhaps to satisfy the public, for some alternative to the Civil Aviation Authority investigating itself. That may well be one of the ways of alleviating risks. I do not accept that there is an increasing risk.

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point about air misses. I thought that that was common knowledge throughout the House, and I am amazed that it is not. My hon. Friend asked about air miss reporting and investigating systems. As I have told the House, the CAA chairman has initiated discussions about that matter. My Department will participate in them. It is an extremely good idea and I hope that the House welcomes it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed a rather long run on that question and I think the House will understand if we now proceed rather more rapidly.

Safety Standards

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the enforcement of transport safety standards by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon: The safe movement of people and goods is one of my top priorities. Effective enforcement of safety standards is part of that and I keep it under constant review.

Mr. Davies: I should like to return to yesterday's near miss, because the Secretary of State has said that on the one hand it was a near miss and on the other hand no safety implications were attached. Secondly, he said that in any event it is not his responsibility. That is completely unsatisfactory. Does the Secretary of State not understand that when hundreds of lives are put at risk there is a clear need to investigate, not only the original individual circumstances, but the system of reporting that allows such events to take place? Will he give an undertaking that he will launch a thorough and open investigation, not only of individual cases, but of the system of reporting?

Mr. Channon: I have already answered that point twice and I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to return to it. He has completely distorted my original answer. The whole House knows that if there is a sighting, or any other incident that should be reported, it must be reported. The vast majority of incidents that are reported are not risk bearing. Surely that must be understood by the House. It seems from preliminary reports that yesterday's incident was such a case.

Mr. Ashby: In matters of transport safety, does my right hon. Friend think it right that the Civil Aviation Authority should investigate itself? Does he also think it right that when the authority produces a report, it produces it to itself? Does he not think that he should be the recipient of that report and that it should be the sort of report that can be debated in the House?

Mr. Channon: In general, air miss reports are widely circulated. I see them because my civil aviation safety adviser wants to discuss them, and it is he who receives the reports from the CAA. Therefore, I have answered my hon. Friend's point. As for the air miss reporting and investigation system, I have told the House four times that the CAA chairman has initiated discussions. I very much welcome that.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State not realise that for all inhabitants of London his replies will not be satisfactory? Following the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), unlike sea or rail safety standards, which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State and which are open and visible, that for the Civil Aviation Authority is not visible or open. The CAA is judge and jury in its own court. Surely that is wrong and we need legislation to change it.

Mr. Channon: As I have said, the CAA chairman has initiated discussions. The House says that the situation is unsatisfactory. I do not wish to politicise the issue, but I must point out that when the Labour Government were in office there were non-risk-bearing air misses. It is important that the House should understand that this is not a new situation.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is getting worse.

Mr. Channon: It is not getting worse. In 1978 there were 119 non-risk-incidents. Traffic has increased since then. For some reason the House will not accept that incidents can be non-risk-bearing. In fact, the numbers of no-risk misses are lower than they were in 1978. So this is not a new phenomenon, and the preliminary reports of the recent incident reveal that there was no risk.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any recent meetings with representatives of the Anglo-French Channel tunnel construction consortium.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend the Minister of State last met senior representatives of Eurotunnel and their contractors Transmanche Link on 15 February.

Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when that brilliant project, which is going so well and was recently warmly endorsed by the Prime Minister, is completed, as soon as possible in the early 1990s, it will be the best way to allay the anxieties of people who worry about air misses between London and Paris?

Mr. Channon: Certainly, it is a brilliant programme and it will be completed in the early 1990s. We shall take every step to ensure that it is completed to the highest safety standards.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister not concerned about the disparity in Chunnel-related investment on each side of the Channel? The French are spending at least £1,200 million on the Paris-to-tunnel rail line, while British Rail is spending only £400 million on the total infrastructure. Will the Minister take shelter behind saying that this is a matter for the board, or will he take the lead and say that it is a matter of national concern with enormous regional implications, and that the Government will do something about it?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood one point. The Channel tunnel is a comparatively small part of the French investment. The French are investing in a high-speed rail system linking them with Brussels and, eventually, Cologne and Amsterdam, and they are spending vast sums of money on that at the moment. British Rail has been asked to study the adequacy of investment by June this year, and it will report then. As the House knows, BR has put forward many investment proposals during the past few years, all of which have received approval.

Heavy Goods Vehicles

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 January, Official Report, columns 23–24, what estimate has been made of the percentage of heavy goods vehicles from abroad which are overloaded, in the light of the 24 per cent. of weighed vehicles which are found to be overloaded; and what actions he proposes to reduce this figure.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): A series of surveys carried out between 1980 and 1986 showed that 20 per cent. of foreign goods vehicles selected on a random basis were overloaded by more than 5 per cent. We propose to install weighbridges at Ramsgate and Immingham, the two major ferry ports which lack them. Consultations are also being held with selected port authorities about testing automatic equipment for weighing incoming lorries.

Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend accept that the fact that one in five incoming vehicles is found to be overweight is a matter of deep concern? As the maximum penalty on

a successful prosecution is only a £200 fine, should not, at the very least, magistrates courts be encouraged to impose the maximum fine?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There must be effective deterrents. We must be able to catch and deter them. Overweight lorries are unsafe, they are cheating and they cause more damage to the roads than they pay for. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister satisfied with the situation that police forces, for understandable reasons, are not taking action when they know that the drivers will soon be out of the country, and possibly will not return for prosecution? There is a problem, and it is becoming an increasing worry.

Mr. Bottomley: Overloaded vehicles are prohibited movement until the load is adjusted, and that is one of the ways in which it cannot pay lorry drivers to overload. We need to use both deterrence and enforcement, as well as trying to ensure that the enforcement strategy is such that people find that it is not worth their while cheating.

Mr. Sayeed: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), does it not make sense to seize part of the cargo of overweight lorries, take a lien on it and not hand it back until the fines are redeemed?

Mr. Bottomley: It would be right for us to go on considering effective ways to reduce this bad problem.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that one of the problems identified after the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise was the danger posed by overloaded lorries on ferries? The Minister's complacent response to this problem will not do. What will the Government do, both in negotiations with foreign Governments and at British ports, to ensure that it is virtually impossible for lorries to risk life at sea by coming to this country overloaded?

Mr. Bottomley: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the last sentence of my initial reply.

Merchant Fleet

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the future of the British merchant fleet.

Mr. Channon: A policy document from the General Council of British Shipping, a leaflet from the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, and about 45 letters from members of the public.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister accept that in spite of the admittedly helpful measures in the Merchant Shipping Bill, which is passing through the House, there is still considerable anxiety about the state of our merchant shipping, not only because of the dramatic decline in merchant tonnage, but because over the past 10 years the pay rates for seafarers have gone down considerably in comparison with rates paid in comparable occupations on land? With the Budget looming, has the Secretary of State made, or does he intend to make, representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about having special tax arrangements to encourage the replacement of ships or the undertaking of heavy repairs? Will the Secretary of State also promote special tax and social security arrangements for seafarers, as is done in other EEC countries?

Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Merchant Shipping Bill measures. Yes, the fleet is slimmer, but it is more efficient, and company success should not necessarily be judged by the number of ships. The important point is to improve efficiency on sea and on land and open up new trade.

Mr. Irvine: When did my right hon. Friend last receive representations about the size of the merchant fleet from the Ministry of Defence, and what was the nature of those representations?

Mr. Channon: All letters from the Ministry of Defence are confidential, but I cannot recall one on that issue. I have already answered the question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). If my hon. Friend is asking for taxation measures, I must point out that that is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Transport Supplementary Grant

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much transport supplementary grant will be increased in 1988–89 vis à vis 1987–88.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: By £11 million—6 per cent.

Mr. Jack: I note my hon. Friend's reply, but he will know of the concern in Lancashire over this year's transport supplementary grant application. Will he do all that he can in the financial year 1989–90 to ensure that the projects in the transport planning programme for Lancashire, which his Department has seen, are adequately funded, as they contain many much-needed road improvements, particularly in west Lancashire and my constituency of Fylde?

Mr. Bottomley: I will do the best that I can for my hon. Friend, as I would for any other hon. Member. It is worth recognising that if everyone knew how well Lancashire did on occasion, I would face much more pressure from around the House.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that large lorries cause at least £200 million worth of damage annually to roads, and the effect of the increase in the weighings of lorries by 50 per cent. at ports, to which the Minister referred, will mean that only 1.5 per cent. of lorry movements inwards and outwards from Britain will be subject to weight checks? In view of the damage caused by lorries to our roads, is it not about time that the Government stopped being permissive and started getting tough?

Mr. Bottomley: I shall try to bear that in mind when considering the transport supplementary grant next year.

Mr. Soames: I thank my hon. Friend for the courtesy and help that he has always shown to West Sussex with regard to transport supplementary grant, but is he aware of the very serious problems that exist on the roads, particularly around Crawley and beyond, caused by the M25? Will he assure the House that he will do all that he can to confer the same benefits on my constituency as he intends to confer on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)?

Mr. Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to get me to visit Sussex to see the work that is

going on and the work that needs to be carried out. I hope to visit Sussex next week, but I am not sure whether I will be spending much time in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Fyfe to ask question 8.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me to answer question 7?

Mr. Speaker: That would not be in order, because I have already notified the Government Whip that question 7 has been unstarred. We will have question 8.

Commuter Services

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has commissioned any studies on the economic impact of the provision of rail commuter services; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has published or collaborated in a number of national and international urban transport studies.

Mrs. Fyfe: What did the Minister tell the Bank of England's City commuter services group, which reported to him that a survey of 5,250 employers revealed that more time was lost from work because of delays and cancellations than through sickness or any other cause?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady is complaining about delays.

Mr. Snape: There have been delays here.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady has complained about delays and the reliability of trains. There is great interest at the moment in Network SouthEast, and reliability on these services has improved from 98.5 to 98.8 per cent. of trains running. Reliability and punctuality have improved. If the hon. Lady can give me a specific area of anxiety in Scotland, I shall write to her.

Mr. Snape: This is not fair on the Government. Is the Minister aware that groups as diverse as the transport users' consultative committees, the Railway Development Society, Transport 2000, the Confederation of British Industry, the TUC—I wonder whether the Minister has found the right page for this answer yet—the Evening Standard commuter club and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have complained recently about the "inadequacy, strain and danger" and overcrowding on British Rail services? Why is it that when Ministers find the right page, we receive only platitudes written by civil servants? Why has the chairman of the British Railways Board received a knighthood for being the most incompetent public servant in the country? Why is the ever-greedy road lobby the only group to be delighted by the incompetence of the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary to question 7. New quality standards were set and accepted by British Rail last July. Punctuality, reliability, cleaning, overcrowding, inquiry delays and queueing for tickets are all covered by the standards. Those matters have been accepted by the chairman of British Rail. In the last six months of last year there was an improvement in punctuality and reliability on the Network SouthEast commuter services.

Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that the commuter service from Manningtree is very important? Despite a rather erratic record of reliability, that service is used by an increasing number of my constituents and others elsewhere in East Anglia. Is he further aware that a great shock was caused when, following the construction of a large new car park at the station, British Rail announced its decision to eliminate most of the InterCity services? At the next meeting with British Rail's management, will my hon. Friend prevail upon it, if he can, to adopt more business-like practices and not to treat its customers as an inconvenience?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall be seeing the sector director of Network SouthEast this evening, and I shall draw that point to his attention.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: If the Minister seriously wants to receive complaints from Scotland, is he prepared to accept dossiers from Scottish Members of Parliament, who can all cite extensive cases of the problems faced by our commuters? Does he accept that one of the major problems facing commuters in Scotland is the poor quality of the rolling stock and the fact that the upgrading, being so slow as to be ineffective, is hindering economic recovery?

Mr. Mitchell: I am aware of the improvements that have occurred in ScotRail. If the hon. Lady is referring to section 20 services, she must refer to the passenger transport authority concerned.

Motorway Repairs

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Various representations have been received which urge speedy completion of repairs. We aim to minimise delays by careful programming, improved traffic management and greater use of lane rental contracts which give an incentive for early completion.

Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend explain why it appears to take so long to effect motorway repairs?

Mr. Bottomley: It now takes between 30 and 40 per cent. less time than before lane rental was introduced. It is important to organise the work properly and to ensure that it is carried out efficiently and effectively. We are seeing substantial improvements. We are extending the use of lane rental contracts. We will not see such an improvement in time because lane rental is now being extended to some of the more complicated roadworks. I should like to see it on other roads as well as motorways.

Mr. Grocott: Is the Minister aware that part of the M54 to Telford has been under repair almost since the day it was opened? The Minister let us know recently that some inquiries were taking place into long-term but permanent remedial work on the motorway. Can he tell us how those inquiries are proceeding?

Mr. Bottomley: It would be simpler for me to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that his reply is completely complacent? I ask him to come with me and drive on a Friday from London to my constituency. A

journey that used to take four and half hours now takes six and a half hours because of the miles and miles of coned-off A1 from Rotherham, north, which adds about one and a half to two hours to a journey. If the Minister had to pass through that in order to get to work, he would damn soon get rid of some of the cones.

Mr. Bottomley: If I were going to my hon. Friend's constituency on a Friday night, I would go by train. It is worth remembering that some of the roadworks are to improve and expand the network, and I think that that is generally welcomed. It is also worth saying that if it had started in 1975, rather than in 1979, the roads would be in a much better state than they are now.

Electrification

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning the electrification of the rail network, and other matters; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Rail on 11 February. A variety of railway matters were discussed.

Mr. Hughes: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will the Minister ensure that he reminds him of the need for the early electrification of the London to south Wales main line? Will he also tell the chairman what provision the Government are making for our local authorities to ensure that they are able to provide for local halts, such as that in Magor in Gwent, which are so urgently needed?

Mr. Mitchell: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. It is for British Rail to come forward with proposals for electrification where it considers that to be appropriate. I have had no application from British Rail in respect of that line.
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter of smaller stations.

Mr. Sackville: Will my hon. Friend say what progress has been made on assessing the possibilities for an improved rail service linking the Channel tunnel with Manchester and the north of England?

Mr. Mitchell: British Rail is required by section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to prepare a plan by the end of 1989 setting out its service proposals. It intends to consult widely in preparation for the plan, but it is too early yet to say exactly what it will entail.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the north-west group of Labour Members on their success in persuading British Rail not to take the nonsensical decision to abolish sleeper services to Manchester and Liverpool and to run empty sleeper trains in one direction? Does he not think that that shows the effectiveness of my hon. Friends from the north-west?

Mr. Mitchell: It was not only Opposition Members who were responsible for making representations on that matter. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is now converted to approving of the chairman of British Rail and his activities.

Rail Services (Quality)

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee to discuss the quality of rail services.

Mr. David Mitchell: I met the chairman of the CTCC in September 1987 to discuss quality of service and other matters.

Mr. Haynes: The Minister is not talking about quality; he is talking about inequality. Why is his Department cutting £3 million a day from financial support for British Rail when people are moaning and groaning all over the country? I want to know when we shall get our proper service from Mansfield and Ashfield to Nottingham to catch the London train. Is the Minister aware that I want to travel on that train, see the beautiful countryside in Nottinghamshire and read what the local papers are saying about me? What will he do about that?

Mr. Mitchell: The key to the standards of service that the hon. Gentleman would like to see is investment. The Government have approved any worthwhile investment proposals put forward by British Rail. My in-tray is empty, and I shall be happy to have it filled again.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

"Stalker" (Prosecution)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General when he now expects to reach a decision "on whether to prosecute Mr. John Stalker under the Official Secrets Acts in respect of his book entitled "Stalker".

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 11 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden).

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Sir John Hermon, Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, said on television yesterday, and will say again today, that Mr. Stalker is thoroughly immature and that his book is a tissue of lies? Should not the public, therefore, treat Mr. Stalker and his book with the contempt that they deserve?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend expresses himself with characteristic robustness. I am not responsible for the views expressed by the Chief Constable or, indeed, by anybody else. Naturally, the Government deplore any breach of confidence of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Archer: Does the Attorney-General agree that, in respect of decisions about prosecutions, he is accountable to this House, and only to this House? Although there may be difficulties about disclosing particular facts, does he agree that that accountability should be made a reality, either through a Select Committee or another acceptable channel? Has he directed his mind to that question, and would he care to make a statement?

The Attorney-General: I am accountable to this House. That does not need to be made a reality. It is a reality.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend know whether the book is a tissue of lies, or a breach of confidence? Surely it cannot be both.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend speaks as though these things are mutually incompatible and as though the entire book, or any book, is wholly consistent in falling into one category or another. That is not always the case.

Mr. Rees: Is the Attorney-General aware that I agree that, although the Stalker book obviously contravenes the Official Secrets Act 1911, he is right not to prosecute? Will he consider other circumstances in the background to the case in which it is alleged that, while the report was being undertaken, details were passed to a journalist in Manchester? Will he speak to the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office and suggest that, in the light of his investigations and these worrying allegations, senior officers who are put in to investigate other police forces should be given instructions on how to carry out those investigations?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with much authority and experience. I shall undertake to ensure that his observations are referred to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for the Home Department, who plainly have an interest in the matter.

Mr. Fraser: Was one of the Attorney-General's considerations that it might have been in the public interest for the public to have the right to know Mr. Stalker's conclusions on his investigations in Northern Ireland? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's conclusion not to prosecute was based on that consideration, will it apply similarly to any civil proceedings?

The Attorney-General: It falls to me to take into account, in my criminal jurisdiction, all relevant circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has referred to one of them, but all of them have to be considered and a right and sound judgment has to be reached at the end. That I endeavour to do.

Mr. Anthony Cavendish (Memoirs)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what has been the cost hitherto of his actions against various publications in relation to Mr. Anthony Cavendish's memoirs.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The total amount of costs expended to date in the actions, relating to the Cavendish memoirs, brought against The Sunday Times and The Observer, is £157.

Mr. Dalyell: Wherein lies Mr. Cavendish's alleged breach of security?

The Solicitor-General: Mr. Cavendish, as a former member of the security service, owes a lifelong duty of confidentiality. It is to establish and enforce that lifelong duty that the actions were brought.

Mr. Dykes: Why is Mr. Cavendish being treated more lightly and generously than Mr. Peter Wright?

The Solicitor-General: He has not been treated in any substantially different way as a matter of principle.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If, in pursuing further action against Mr. Cavendish, consideration has to be given to


the expenditure which may be incurred, will consideration also be given to the abortive expenditure which has already been incurred in the Court of Session in Scotland?

The Solicitor-General: Matters in Scotland have not yet reached their conclusion, and therefore it remains to be seen whether they are or are not abortive.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a prerequisite of joining the secret service is the ability to keep a secret?

The Solicitor-General: I agree.

Mr. Fraser: Do I understand from the Solicitor-General's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there was no breach of security — that there was only a breach of confidentiality?

The Solicitor-General: The action was brought to enforce the lifelong duty of confidentiality.

Alleged Government Subversion (Prosecutions)

Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General what recent consideration has been given to initiating prosecutions in relation to offences concerning alleged attempts to subvert the Government of Lord Wilson; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement of 6 May 1987, in which she said that this matter had been investigated by the then director general of the security service; that no evidence or indication had been found of any plot or conspiracy against Lord Wilson by or within the security service; and that she did not propose to institute any other inquiry into the matter.

Mr. Allen: The Attorney-General will be aware that allegations have been made by a senior former MI5 operative — Mr. Peter Wright — in his book "Spycatcher". Will he now stop his inactivity in this matter, because many people feel that by not having a further inquiry the right hon. and learned Gentleman is condoning the security service acting as the second team, or back stop, to the Conservative party?

The Attorney-General: I do not go along with what the hon. Gentleman has said at all. In matters of this kind it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide what, if any, action is to be taken in the face of any evidence, however presented, relating to the commission of any possible offence.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Are these not just about the most damaging allegations that can be made about Crown servants—that they tried to destabilise a legally elected Government? For public confidence, is not the best way forward to have an independent inquiry into these matters? We had Lord Franks' inquiry into the conduct of the Falklands war. Surely such an inquiry would lay to rest the public's anxiety, because people would then know that public servants are there to help, not undermine, the country's institutions.

The Attorney-General: That point was made to the Prime Minister — no doubt it was made by my hon. Friend — when she made the statement to which I referred in my original reply. As the ultimate prosecuting

authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am not responsible for whether there should be public inquiries. The Prime Minister is, and she dealt with the matter fully and to the satisfaction of the House in the answer that she gave in 1987.

Prosecution Policy

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy.

The Attorney-General: Last Thursday morning.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the immense harm done to Anglo-Irish relations by the statement that he made two weeks ago, in which he said that there would be no prosecution of RUC officers? While a later statement was made on the issue only last week, the fact remains that immense harm has been caused to Anglo-Irish relations. Would it not be wise to look again at the decision?

The Attorney-General: This question relates not to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, but to the DPP for England and Wales. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman by way of a supplementary question has no bearing on it, but if it had, my answer would be no.

Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the decision not to prosecute was made, not by him, but by the DPP for Northern Ireland?

The Attorney-General: That is entirely true, as I made clear in my statement on 25 January.

Mr. Cryer: Has the Attorney-General discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions the possibility of prosecuting Chapman Pincher? All the information produced by Peter Wright in the book "Spycatcher" had been provided for Chapman Pincher. Is it not hypocritical of the Attorney-General to wax lyrical about a lifelong duty of confidentiality for members of MI5 when he knows full well that information has been provided to Chapman Pincher with the approval of the Government and Government officers? If Peter Wright and others are open to prosecution, should not Chapman Pincher, as the Government's mouthpiece, be subject to prosecution as well?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that nearly a year ago I announced that the prosecution of Mr. Chapman Pincher would not be in conformity with the code for Crown prosecutors.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

International Fund for Agricultural Development

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is planning any meetings with officials from the International Fund for Agricultural Development to discuss investment policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): No, Sir.

Mr. Smith: In view of the good track record of the International Fund for Agricultural Development in investing in agriculture for the benefit of those who need


it most — the rural poor — will the Minister give an undertaking that Britain will contribute to the next replenishment of IFAD funds? Will he consider making a larger contribution than we have made in the past, so that this country can give a lead in obtaining adequate resources for a viable level of work from this invaluable organisation?

Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we have committed about £47 million so far to IFAD, including £7 million for the special programme for Africa. We are playing, and will continue to play, our full part in the negotiations about the next replenishment. I was pleased to be able to discuss that issue, among others, with the president of IFAD—who does a splended job—as recently as last November.

Commonwealth Schools (Textbooks)

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to provide textbooks for schools in Commonwealth developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: This year we expect to spend about £1·3 million from the aid programme on textbooks for schools in developing Commonwealth countries. I am also considering support for some interesting proposals to provide textbooks no longer needed in British schools to developing countries.

Mr. Hannam: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Can he tell us whether the Ranfurly library is involved in the project? Can he also give some details of which countries are being considered for assistance?

Mr. Patten: The Ranfurly library service, which does such a magnificent job, is centrally involved in the proposals, which are being discussed with Rotary and the British Council. I very much hope that the scheme will get off the ground. If it does, it is intended to cover all developing Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the provision of textbooks, many developing countries welcome the provision of audio-visual aids, and that the British Council, which is doing splendid work in many countries, would be able to assist if more resources were made available?

Mr. Patten: Through the aid programme we have been making more resources available to the British Council, which has been doing a superb job in helping to manage our technical co-operation and training programme. Of course, audio-visual aids have an important part to play in education in developing countries, as do books, which is why we have increased spending on the books presentation programme.

Public Service Pensions

Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received asking the Government to rectify the anomaly whereby all public service pensioners receive credit for pre-appointment war service except where that public service was overseas.

Mr. Chris Patten: Over the past few years there have been many representations from the Overseas Service

Pensioners Association and its members, primarily through constituency correspondence. The Government have also taken note of early-day motions tabled by my hon. Friend on this matter.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that one early-day motion has been signed by no fewer than 245 right hon. and hon. Members, asking the Government to rectify this anomaly as soon as possible? Is it not a fact that the anomaly concerns only a small amount of money and that the number of people involved is small, and is getting smaller in the natural course of events, as most of them are elderly? Is it not a matter of honour for the Government to rectify this anomaly? Will my hon. Friend press for funds to enable him to do justice to these deserving people?

Mr. Patten: I think I am right in saying that the matter relates to between 5,000 and 6,000 pensioners. The estimated cost — it is only an estimate — is about £6 million a year. We are keeping the matter under careful review. I am afraid that, so far, the Government have not felt able to accommodate this extra commitment. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot add anything substantive to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs —the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar)—said in the debate last July.

Ghana

Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Kingdom contribution will be made to the Ghanaian Government programme of action to mitigate the social costs of adjustment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: The United Kingdom helped the Ghanaian Government to draw up their programme of action to mitigate the social costs of adjustment — PAMSCAD. Following the recent conference on the programme we shall be discussing with the Ghanaian Government ways in which we may use our substantial aid to Ghana to contribute to PAMSCAD's objectives.

Ms. Mowlam: As the Minister has previously voiced his support for the debtor nations that adopt programmes like PAMSCAD to help the poor in their own countries, will he say whether, on such an important programme, the Government would consider extra cash outside the bilateral aid that he has mentioned?

Mr. Patten: So far we have contributed almost £50 million for the support of the economic reform programme in Ghana. I envisage our making a further substantial commitment before too long. A health sector mission will visit Ghana in March, and I hope that some of its proposals on the development of primary health care and mother and child health will make a considerable contribution to PAMSCAD, which is so valuable and such a model for other countries.

Bilateral Aid (Country Programmes)

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in adopting the recommendations of the second report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on "Bi-Lateral Aid (Country Programmes)."

Mr. Chris Patten: The Government welcomed the second report from the FAC, and its reply (Cm. 225) is a detailed response to the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that it is unfortunate that the Department of Overseas Development has many millions of pounds at its disposal for the assistance of what are, in effect, industrial exports? Although some of those exports may have a development element, would it not be better if the sums spent for that purpose were deducted from the Pearson targets or any other percentage related specifically to overseas aid?

Mr. Patten: I thought that our response to the FAC on that point was overwhelmingly convincing.

Comic Relief

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will match, pound for pound, the money raised by Comic Relief.

Mr. Chris Patten: I should like to congratulate the organisers of Comic Relief on their magnificent effort. We attach great importance to the work of the voluntary agencies. That is why we have increased, by 50 per cent. to £9 million next year, the support of the joint funding scheme, which matches pound for pound the cost of agreed projects.

Sir Russell Johnston: That is not exactly an answer, as the Minister knows.

Mr. Skinner: Of course it is an answer, but it is a lousy one.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) as always. Will the Minister specifically match pound for pound the amount raised by Comic Relief and give a Government commitment, which would surely have a positive effect on any future voluntary efforts, to match pound for pound the money raised for overseas aid in this way?

Mr. Patten: If we were to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests— I accept that it might be a headline-making gimmick—it might limit the amount of money that we provide to the Horn of Africa. So far, taxpayers' generosity has exceeded that of those who contributed so magnificently to Comic Relief. As taxpayers, we have contributed almost £36 million to the relief operation in Ethiopia. When I was in Sudan recently I announced an extra £15 million worth of support for Sudan, in addition to the £10 million that we made available just before Christmas.

Miss Lestor: I acknowledge the contribution that the Government have made to Ethiopia and other areas. Does

the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was asking for extra money—not that the Government should merely match what has already been given—to stimulate interest in this country? Comic Relief—and the little effort that was made here—captured the imagination of thousands of people. Will the Minister reconsider his action, bearing in mind that such action from him, in addition to what is already being given, would help to keep people's minds on the problem and encourage them to give more generously?

Mr. Patten: Of course I welcome the interest that was shown in the contributions to Comic Relief. I repeat that we shall be doing more in Ethiopia and Sudan. We shall be adding to what we have already given from a growing programme. We have increased by 50 per cent. our support for the pound-for-pound joint funding scheme with non-governmental organisations.

Kampuchea

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the provision of development assistance for Kampuchea.

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of United Kingdom overseas aid to Kampuchea; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patten: I have received a number of representations. As I said on 1 February, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), it would, in the Government's view, be wrong in principle to give development aid to the illegitimate and unrepresentative regime in Phnom Penh. We should nevertheless be prepared to consider providing humanitarian assistance in the context of any internationally organised relief effort. We provided nearly £1·5 million in 1987 to help Cambodians who have sought refuge in the camps along the Thai-Cambodian border.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree with the views given in the White Paper that was produced by Oxfam, specifically regarding Kampuchea? Does he agree that, if people are living in poverty and if there is infant mortality and problems of personal health, they are entitled to our aid and assistance without any regard to the political views that a minority in those countries might express?

Mr. Patten: I do not agree with Oxfam on this matter. I agree with the 116 countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, which have endorsed the position taken by the United Nations General Assembly.

South of Scotland Electricity Board (Coal Imports)

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to allow tenders for the importation of coal.
It is a specific matter as it refers to the two coal-fired power stations in Scotland, at Cockenzie and Longannet.
It is important because the coal from the Lothian coal field—from the pits at Monktonhall and Bilston Glen—goes to Cockenzie. The Clackmannan coalfield, which is based largely in my constituency, with mines at Castlebridge and Solsgirth, is dedicated exclusively to the production of coal for Longannet power station. The latter is known as the Longannet complex, and all the coal output is dedicated to the station. It is taken there by conveyor belt from the underground face to the furnaces.
The importation of coal from abroad, which is purchased on the spot market at prices which may, in the short term, be lower than those charged by British Coal, will result in the closure of the Scottish coalfield, the loss of 4,000 jobs directly and many thousands indirectly.
The matter is urgent because the closing date for tenders is today. Last Thursday my hon. Friends and I met the Minister of State, Scottish Office, but he refused to intervene.
The Scottish Office is responsible for the operation of the SSEB. The buck stops at the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is why he should be called to account today, before the electricity board makes a decision that would have dire consequences for the Scottish economy and is due more to the rush to privatisation and the personal aggrandisement of a few than for the protection of the consumer, the continuity or supply or the jobs of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision by the South of Scotland Electricity Board to seek tenders for the importation of coal and its consequences on the Scottish coalmining industry.
I listened with care to what the hon. Member has said but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit this application to the House. No doubt he will find other ways of bringing it to our attention.

Master of the Rolls

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could give the House some advice on the rules in "Erskine May" about hon. Members criticising judges. The matter arises out of an early-day motion, of which you will be aware, in the names of myself and certain of my hon. Friends in relation to the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, after his judgment in the "Spycatcher" case. I subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister about this matter, and then, to my surprise, I received a letter from Sir John Donaldson. I had copied my letter to the Prime Minister to Sir John Donaldson. He wrote to me and told me that he had written to the Prime Minister. Sir John Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls, has gone outside what he said in the court and, as it were, entered the affray.
As I understand the rules of the House, we may attack judges only by way of an early-day motion, but if a judge were to go outside the courts —for example, if a judge were to launch a criticism of a Member of Parliament in relation to his judgment in a newspaper article — the emeritus professor of law at the London School of Economics, John Griffiths, says that that might well place a totally different complexion on things.
I ask you to look at the matter, Mr. Speaker, to see whether, in view of the fact that the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, has gone outside the courts by writing to myself and the Prime Minister about his judgment, we may criticise him on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right to say that it is not open to hon. Members to criticise a judge, except by an early-day motion. He has correctly done that. What he alleges —the possibility of a newspaper article —is pure speculation at the moment. I have no knowledge of that. I shall look carefully at what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: (Bolsover): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) you mentioned the possibility of letters, and so on. It is not a question of speculation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House did not misunderstand me. I was referring to the possibility of an article in the newspapers.

Mr. Skinner: That is exactly the point that I was making. It is not a possibility, and it is not speculation.
The Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, has brought the matter into the public domain. He wants to have his cake and eat it. We are not allowed to criticise judges on the Floor of the House, because they are not able to criticise Members of Parliament except in a court of law. If judges have the right to attack Members of Parliament outside the courts, we should have the right to attack judges in the House. That is the point that my hon. Friend made. It was not about a speculative effort. It is about the fact that Sir John Donaldson has put it in writing and put it in the public domain.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, if I heard the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr.


Sedgemore) correctly, the letter was written to the Prime Minister. It is not a question of its being in the public domain.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What about retired judges, or judges who have gone to the House of Lords? For example, last night I watched Lord Denning in a television programme, "Rough Justice". He said that it is unfortunate that some innocent people are in prison—it is just too bad. Am I not allowed to criticise Lord Denning for making such an idiotic statement? If innocent people are in prison, they should be released. If "Rough Justice". or any other television programme, helps that end, surely it is important for democracy and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the rules about that, too. Peers—Lord Denning is a peer—may be criticised only by motion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), did you not make it clear that the letter was not in the public domain? Surely a Prime Minister's letter written, as I understand it, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is in the public domain. This is not exactly a peripheral matter, as some hon. Members seem to think. The Master of the Rolls has gone on record as saying that certain actions that the rest of us might consider illegal are legal in relation to the security services. That is a highly controversial statement, and to say that his letter is not in the public domain is giving the benefit of the doubt away from Parliament.
You, Mr. Speaker, have been the protector of Parliament. Do you not think that, in this context, you should see your role as the protector of the House of Commons against a Master of the Rolls who is doing what no other Master of the Rolls has done in the history of the office?

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that I will look into the matter, and I will do so.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be correct, as you

said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), that we cannot criticise judges when they make such extraordinary statements. Yesterday Lord Denning appeared on a television programme and engaged in an argument. Any hon. Member should be entitled to make any comment that he wishes about Lord Denning or any other judge.
Secondly, is it not true that, whether they are judges or not, it is perfectly open to Members of this House to criticise members of another place? They must do it in certain ways, but they are entitled to do so.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, will you make a statement on the subject to the House tomorrow? Lord Donaldson's judgment was an exceptional event. He said that something that is happening now is beyond the law and he called on Parliament to regularise it. Something is happening that is a breach of the law and he is inviting Parliament to change it. That is not a judge acting as a judge. It is a judge acting as a politician and saying, "We want the matter to be decided by Parliament."
Will you make a statement on those three matters to the House tomorrow? If the rulings were upheld, it would be a grave infringement of the rights of debate in the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that 1 will look into the matter, and I will do that. As for Lord Denning, the question is whether he was acting in his official capacity, or in another capacity, but I shall look into that matter, too.

European Court of Justice

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Moving from judges in the United Kingdom to judges elsewhere, you will be aware that the next business on the Order Paper relates to the appointment of judges to the European Court and its extension. Can you advise me whether, under Standing Order No. 102, if more than 20 hon. Members stand in their places, the debate on that document will be on the Floor of the House and will not be referred to a Standing Committee, as the Government wish?

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, but I am informed that that motion will not be moved.

Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I anticipate the hon. Gentleman? I have not selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Gentleman and several other right hon. and hon. Members.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your statement. However, in procedure, is there not a great deal of difference between debating a matter and testing the support of the House for a matter? On this matter of principle, how can the House reach a decision? On the Education Reform Bill, an exactly similar amendment, which you agreed was in order and which was tabled by members of the previous Procedure Committee, was not selected.
This amendment, which tries to regulate the position, is supported not only by my inferior self, but by a previous Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), a previous leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the deputy leader of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and other distinguished right hon. and hon. Members. The amendment has not been selected. How, therefore, on this most important matter of timetabling, which is a limitation of Members' rights—there cannot be anything much more important than that—can we ensure that the principle set out in the amendment is not just debatable —we realise that it can be debated—but can be forced to a Division? Surely it is not otiose that we force the Government to a particular point rather than accept their assurances or intentions. Must that not make Members look to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure their rights against the might of the Government? How can we do that if we cannot vote on the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I imagine that every Business Committee considers a Bill with a view to ensuring that every part of it is debated. That is the object of the Business Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have that as an official ruling in "Erskine May"? At present that is not the case, and it would be a most important new step if the Business Committee always sought to ensure that every part of the Bill was debated.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter to be included in "Erskine May".

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. —(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 24th March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 24th March may continue until Ten p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 25th March 1988.

Report and Third Reading

2. —(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third

Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member 'who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time

7. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new


Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10. —(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12. —(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has

been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Local Government Finance Bill; "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
The House will be well aware of the importance of the Local Government Finance Bill to which this motion seeks to apply a timetable. The objectives of the Bill are well known. They are, first, to abolish the injustices of the present domestic rating system; secondly, to make local authorities more accountable and responsive to their electors; and, thirdly, to provide much needed protection for business ratepayers. The Bill will achieve these objectives through the replacement of domestic rates by the fairer community charge, the introduction of a simpler and more stable system of paying revenue support grants to local authorities, and the establishment of a uniform national business rate.
This is not the time or the occasion to go into the details of this measure, but I will make some general comments. The present system of local government finance, where 20 million of the 35 million electorate make no direct contribution to the cost of local services, is not an equitable one, and can lead to irresponsible local authorities of the type that we have so regrettably seen in many of the areas controlled by the Labour party. Moreover, half of local revenue is raised from businesses which are defenceless against exploitation by these same authorities.
Our proposed community charge will introduce the accountability which is currently lacking. All electors, not just a minority, in a local authority's area will have a close personal and financial interest in their council's performance, and will therefore be more concerned that necessary services are provided efficiently. Local democracy should be much strengthened by the Bill.

Mr. Simon Huges: Will the Leader of the House say how businesses will have a greater say after the legislation, given that they will have absolutely no influence on their local rate? Their only influence will be on the Government, and Governments can be just as arbitrary and unlistening as local government.

Mr. Wakeham: Local businesses have no vote and no great influence— [Interruption.] In some areas they may do, and in some areas they do not. We believe that businesses will have more influence through a uniform rate applied throughout the country, which will bring much needed relief to some parts.
Even the Labour party admits that local democracy—

Dr. John Cunningham: The Leader of the House does not seem to understand what the Bill is doing. At present, every local authority has a statutory obligation to discuss the implications of its local budget with the local business community. That obligation is wholly removed by the legislation and there will be no requirement on local authorities to discuss matters with the local business community.

Mr. Wakeham: If some local authorities had exercised their statutory responsibilities and consulted and listened,


we might not have got into the difficulty in which we now are. The hon. Gentleman goes right to the heart of the problem. The Labour party admits that local government democracy will be strengthened by the Bill. I quote from the Labour pamphlet, "Labour Councils in the Cold", issued by the Labour Co-ordinating Committee. It states that one of the effects of the community charge would be that
when the local council wants to carry out a programme of service expansion, local people will no longer be cushioned by increased business rates and rate support grant. They will want to know that increased expenditure is well spent".
They will indeed. It is such a pity that the Labour party seems to regard that as a drawback.
Our proposals for replacing domestic rates have long been public knowledge. More than two years ago, the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government", published in January 1986, set out the broad policy now embodied in the Bill. There was widespread consultation on the Green Paper and more than 1,200 responses were received during the 10 months that followed. Separate documents were subsequently published on the community charge, non-domestic rating, the new grant system and the mechanism for appeals.
Moreover, we put our proposals explicitly to the country. Our manifesto for the 1987 general election stated:
we will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer community charge.
That commitment was the culmination of a long search for a replacement for domestic rates and was subsequently endorsed in resounding fashion by the electorate. This undertaking was renewed in the Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament, and the proposals were approved by the House when it gave the Bill a Second Reading by 340 votes to 253.
The House had the opportunity on Second Reading to discuss the principle of the Bill at considerable length, for about 12 hours in all. Since then, more than 72 hours have been spent in Committee in detailed consideration of the community charge alone. So far the Committee has discussed 16 clauses and one schedule, plus five new clauses and a new schedule. More than nine hours were spent debating the 21 non-Government amendments to clause 1, which runs to only five lines. Sixty-seven non-Government amendments were tabled dealing with exemptions from the community charge, set out in clause 2, with 15 hours of debate.
I do not deny that the Bill deserves careful consideration, but so far only 21 clauses, in 72 hours, have received such careful attention.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Leader of the House tell us why it was more than 100 hours before the guillotine was introduced on the Scottish legislation in the last Parliament, and longer before it was introduced on the Rates Bill, of which only six clauses had been debated before the guillotine was introduced? Why is this the earliest guillotine introduced for a local government finance measure, after less time for consideration? Is it because the Government cannot bear to listen to the arguments?

Mr. Wakeham: That is the substance of my speech. Bringing forward the guillotine earlier will ensure that the Bill in total is better discussed in Committee, which is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir

P. Emery), my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), my predecessor as Leader of the House, and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen want.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: How many Government amendments have we discussed in Committee? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the Government's inefficiency in drafting the Bill.

Mr. Wakeham: I have no doubt that there were plenty of Government amendments. I have no doubt that they were wise amendments, based on having listened to the debate and having taken notice of it. That shows a proper consideration of the Bill in Committee, which is something that we all want. I hope that I shall set a timetable that will allow further Government amendments, should they be necessary, and time for Opposition amendments, which may not be quite as helpful.
I fear that we do not have available the 400 hours in Committee that would be necessary at the pace that we ale going to deal with the remaining 116 clauses and 11 schedules to the Bill. I do not believe that such time would be necessary even if it were available—first, because the essence of our proposals is in part I of the Bill and has already been the subject of wide-ranging debates, and secondly, because I am not wholly convinced that the best possible use has been made of the hours spent in Committee debate. I would not be alone in the House in questioning the worth of discussing eight amendments from the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) which sought merely to amend the name of the community charge, particularly when the hon. Gentleman admitted that their acceptance would not alter his attitude to the Bill.
We have to ensure that there is opportunity for due and structured consideration of all the provisions in the later parts of the Bill. They deal with complex and important issues, such as the revenue support grant and non-domestic rates, which are an integral part of the reform of local government finance. I am concerned today, as I was in bringing forward a timetable motion for the Education Reform Bill, to provide sufficient time for all the issues in the Bill to be properly discussed by this House before it goes to another place. That is the intention of the timetable motion.
The motion would require the Committee to complete its consideration by 10 pm on 24 March. If the Committee continues to sit on the same basis as it has been doing at present, there would be time for more than 80 hours further consideration in Committee. As is customary, it would be for the Business Sub-Committee, which has the important task of allocating the amount of time for discussion of each part of the Bill within the total days available, to decide whether the present pattern of sittings should be maintained or might sensibly be increased. In this context, the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and other distinguished hon. Members, although not selected, will be a helpful reminder to the Business Sub-Committee of what is expected of it.
In addition to the Standing Committee's consideration, a further four days on the Floor of the House have been allocated to the Bill's remaining stages. The Business Committee would provide for this time to be used


appropriately to allow discussion of all the most important issues. No Leader of the House can consistently introduce timetable motions, each of which is the most generous for 20 years. However, I hope that hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, who are concerned to see proper discussion of all a Bill's provisions in this House, will agree that the generous amount of time provided and the stage at which it is brought forward put this motion in the same class as the one that the House approved three weeks ago for the Education Reform Bill.
This is not
a timetable which ends real debate, with backbench independence stifled" —
to quote a leader last week in a newspaper that has recently proved its devotion to the alliance by splitting itself in half. This is not the old-fashioned guillotine intended abruptly to cut debate, such as we saw 16 times in fewer than three years when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House. It is, rather, a carefully planned timetable motion and I am moving it early enough in the Committee stage to ensure that all parts of the Bill receive parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that the House would not wish another place to be able to complain that this had not been done.
In this case, there is another reason for bringing forward arrangements expediting and structuring discussion of the Bill. It is the task that faces local authorities in implementing it. In little more than 12 months, local authorities will be preparing to canvass their communities for the community charges register and will be getting their registration, billing and collection systems in place. To do this effectively, they need sufficient time for planning.

Mr. David Winnick: As the Bill is apparently the flagship of this Administration, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and his immediate predecessor as Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), are vigorously opposed to the poll tax? As those are just a few of the many Conservative Members who are opposed in principle to the poll tax, how on earth can the country be convinced that this measure is right? Is it surprising that the latest opinion poll shows that over 60 per cent. of people are opposed to the poll tax?

Mr. Wakeham: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman just picked a few names out of a hat in any old fashion. These proposals were very much part of our election manifesto and have been endorsed in the House by a substantial majority. I do not see present any of my right hon. Friends that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is present. The vote will show that many hon. Members are in favour of the timetable motion.
We are doing what we can to disseminate information to local authorities, as early as possible, but they cannot implement the charge without the certainty that comes from the legislation and regulations made under it. Many details remain to be prescribed in regulations, and we cannot do that until the legislation has passed through the parliamentary processes. The longer this is delayed, the

more difficult we make the task of the local authority practitioners who have the responsibility to their community of making the system work. If time were lost needlessly in Parliament, the local authorities' task would be made unnecessarily onerous.
I commend the motion to the House, in the belief that it provides for measured consideration of the Local Government Finance Bill in the context of the timing constraints within the parliamentary framework, and those outside which I have just outlined. If I may borrow a phrase from the Labour Members:
the country is crying out for change".
Local electors and local businesses are crying out for a change from an unfair system of local revenue raising, to a more equitable one that will increase local government accountability and strengthen local democracy. The Bill will give them such a change, and the motion will ensure that the remaining clauses of the Bill will he adequately considered and that the community charge can be implemented, as planned, in two years' time.

4 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The House could be forgiven for acknowledging that there is a certain predictability about timetable debates. The Leader of the House explains exactly why debate on a crucial issue should be restricted. It is the Opposition's job to explain exactly why debate should go on for considerably longer. It is my job to explain why there should be far more consideration of the Bill, although the House might understand why some Opposition Members adopt a certain ambivalent attitude when we consider what the public at large think about the poll tax.

The Times on 21 January this year stated:
Tories alarmed at growing opposition to the poll tax".
The figures show that well over two thirds of the electorate are concerned about the effect of a poll tax. Even better, last week, The Independent mentioned
Strong opposition to poll tax from voters in marginals.
I have to declare an interest. I have a long-standing personal interest in the activities of voters in key marginals. I am delighted to see that, according to the poll in the Local Government Chronicle, a substantial majority of voters in key marginals are wholly opposed to the poll tax, identifying it as an unfair tax. Indeed, many Conservative Members fully appreciate the unfairness of that tax.

The Secretary of State for The Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to one of the conclusions of that particular poll, which stated:
The Conservatives still hold a clear lead in these key areas.

Mr. Grocott: It refers to Conservative-held marginals. As the Secretary of State will appreciate, 4 per cent. of the electorate were willing to change their vote. It may not be many to him, but it is extremely important to some hon. Members.
I could not have put it better than the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who said on Second Reading—this is what we shall be telling the country in the months and years ahead—
Responsibility for the poll tax will now be targeted precisely and unavoidably at the Government who introduced that tax. That tax will be known as a Tory tax."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1141.]


We shall make sure that no one remains in any doubt about that.
It might be in the interest of the Labour party to give the Government some assistance. When the poll tax proposals slip through people's doors, that will be good news for us. However, not for the first time, I ask my hon. Friends to put the public interest before the party's interest and ensure that the Bill is thoroughly scrutinised. If that means some delay, so be it.
There is no doubt about what will be that impact of the poll tax when it happens, whether or not we accept the guillotine motion. There has not been sufficient time to debate the Bill. As has already been explained, only 16 clauses have been debated and we have reached only the first schedule to the Bill.
It should be remembered that there is no precedent for such a Bill in England and Wales, although one exists in Scotland. I am sure that if some of the Conservative Members form Scotland who voted for the guillotine on the Scottish Bill just over a year ago were present today, they would advise their hon. Friends whether there should be another guillotine.
The tax is unique in its scale. Never before has a new tax been introduced which will directly affect 30 million of our fellow citizens. Never before has there been on such a scale a new tax that is unrelated to people's ability to pay or to the quality of services that they receive. Never before has a tax been introduced which is redistributive not in the way that most 20th-century economists understand the term, but in a notion unique to the Tories under Thatcherism—not through a tax system which helps the poor, but through a tax system which redistributes the burden from those best able to pay to those least able to pay. That is a novel concept. Never before has a tax been introduced which will cost twice as much to collect as the system which it replaces.
The poll tax is unique and requires unique parliamentary consideration. It is also unique in the unanimity of opposition to it. It would not be a bad parliamentary principle if the consideration that the House gives to legislation was at least related to the degree of opposition to it in the country. The opposition to the poll tax is unanimous.
Only last Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment
how many letters he has received from members of the public (a) in support of the community charge and (b) opposed to the community charge.
I should have thought that that was a fairly simple question which might have a fairly simple answer. However, the Secretary of State replied:
A summary of 1,271 responses received … was placed in the Library … Since then my Department has received a large number of letters commenting on specific aspects of our proposals and requesting further information." —[Official Report, 17 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 960.]
I bet that he has received further comments and proposals, but he did not give a straight answer to a straight question. The Secretary of State has had an expensive education—I was going to say "a good education". I am sure that he is capable of giving a straight answer to a straight question, but we have not heard how many people are against the poll tax, in terms of the representations received, and how many people are in favour of it.
Everyone is against the poll tax. On a free and secret ballot, I am sure that many Conservative Members would

vote against it. All the professionals in local government are against it. In repeated survey of local government finance since the war the poll tax has had hardly a mention as a serious way of financing local government. It appears by a fluke at this very late stage.
Again I quote the right hon. Member for Henley, who on Second Reading said:
by the time that consultation period on the Green Paper was over, the idea of a poll tax had no friends. It was dismissed by the Cabinet with hardly a backward glance. I wish that I could come to the House and say that I won the argument, but in truth there was no argument."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 1432, c. 1138–39.]
That sums up the view of the right hon. Gentleman, which is shared by many Tories.

Mr. Robin Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that followed the Layfield commission, which is broadly accepted by both sides of the House as the most definitive analysis of local government finance which did not find it worth considering?

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman knows that repeatedly, from the Allen committee in the 1960s through the Layfield report, the Green Paper and the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, that proposal has not received any serious consideration. Least of all has it received serious consideration from those at the sharp end—those who will implement it. In my area of The Wrekin, the district council officers have prepared a report on the costs and problems of the implementation of the poll tax, which says:
On the assumption that 97,000 adults will be liable to pay poll tax, then an additional 760,000 payments could be received, an increase of 370 per cent. It is envisaged that the increase in workload, due to increases in volume and likely problems with collection, will be massive.
That is one district council's assessment of what will be involved.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Select Committee on the Environment, on which the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and I sit, when there was a clear Tory majority in 1981, there was no vote in favour of a poll tax? Does my hon. Friend agree that if there were a free vote in the Cabinet, only two would be in favour of the poll tax — that fanatic, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State?

Mr. Grocott: Strange things happen in Cabinets where Prime Ministers are surrounded by sycophants, and that is one of the problems that we face.
No one, particularly those at the sharp end who will have to deliver the system, is in favour of the poll tax. The opposition to it is near unanimous, and the Bill requires parliamentary scrutiny in view of that fact.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grocott: No, I will not.
There is another reason why it is essential that we debate this proposition more than we would any normal legislative proposal. This measure, rightly called a poll tax, is a threat to our democratic process. That is not true of most taxes. I do not like VAT, but I do not think for a moment that it is a threat to democracy. Can anyone seriously doubt that the imposition of the poll tax will be a serious disincentive to many of our citizens from registering their right to vote in the normal way? We already know that electoral registers are used for many


strange purposes. They get sold to finance companies, discount agencies, insurance companies and the rest. Who can doubt that the poll tax man will get his hands on the electoral register? It is inevitable.
I am delighted that the public are in no doubt about what kind of tax this is. In the opinion poll to which I referred earlier, carried out by NOP Market Research Ltd.— a reputable firm — and published in the Local Government Chronicle, 77 per cent. of those questioned referred to the tax as a poll tax. Only 2 per cent.—they must have been brainwashed by the Tories in some way — called it a community charge. Overwhelmingly, the public understand it for what it is. It is a tax on the right to vote. It will be forever known as the poll tax, however much the Leader of the House may resent the fact that we tabled amendments about a change to that name.
So far, no Government spokesman has explained the difference between a tax and a charge. Why do they persist in calling it a community charge? Is it just the doctrine that one expects from a Ministry of Truth trying to pretend that a tax is not a tax? By any definition, this is a tax. I dread the Tory propaganda at the next general election. It may say that since the Government have replaced rates with a community charge, there has been a substantial reduction in taxation.
If the Government are honest about calling taxes charges, why do they not introduce a "pay-as-you-earn income charge" or a "value added charge" as a way to pretend that tax does not exist? We should beware if the Government persist in playing with words in this way. The Prime Minister told us in the general election campaign that the Government would not introduce VAT on children's clothes or on food. I know that some of my hon. Friends do not believe that, but even if we take the Prime Minister's words at face value, she did not say anything about the imposition of a value added charge. Perhaps we can look forward to that.
Such a proposal could come only from a Government composed of a Prime Minister surrounded by sycophants who do not even dare to tell her when all of them know that what is being proposed is absurd. This proposal is the product of a Government who think that they can walk on water, but who deserve to sink without trace. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will insist that the poll tax should get the full parliamentary treatment that it deserves, and that is why I hope they will vote against the guillotine motion.

Mr. John Biffen: These occasions always have a casual and friendly character about them, and this afternoon is no departure from that tradition. Although the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) made a speech of some length, and eventually worked himself up to the enthusiasm appropriate for a Second Reading debate, he did not identify the guillotine as the most onerous and most undemocratic imposition upon the House as it deals with one of the most unacceptable Bills that has ever confronted it.
I was pleased that the hon. Member approached the matter in that spirit, because we already know that political hotheads north of the Tweed are talking about non-payment of this tax. Therefore, we are entitled to hear from the Opposition Front Bench right away that such

action will have their condemnation, and if they are not prepared to do it formally, the mild and civilised way in which that speech was delivered was a clear sign that they will distance themselves from the activists in Scotland who are proposing to boycott the tax.
I am pleased to have had the chance to sign the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and I appreciate the order in which the debate will proceed. I hope that on some future occasion we can so arrange our affairs that the amendment, which is in order and has been so adjudged, may be part of our debate in more tangible terms than merely being a matter for discussion.
I shall comment on the terms of the guillotine motion in general. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on bringing in this guillotine earlier, and on providing rather more time, than has traditionally been the case. This is a welcome evolution, and I hope that it will point to a final conclusion and to the end being sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. That will be to the advantage of the House when dealing with these matters.
In particular, we require all the time that has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because the time already spent has been devoted substantially to the form of the community charge. It has not yet resulted in any major alteration, and that is an oversight which the House must remedy. As ever, in these matters, I travel with some hope, because my right hon. Friend prayed in aid as the precedent for his action today what had been done in respect of the Education Reform Bill. The House will know that, within the last few days, amendments to that Bill have been tabled—amendments of the most far-reaching character, which will have a substantial consequence on the provision for universities.
That is an encouragement to those on both sides of the House who believe that if one decides—it is a decision which I endorsed and voted for on Second Reading—that it is better, in local authority revenue matters, to have a tax on persons than a tax on property, how one elaborates that judgment, that choice and that decision is a matter which belongs properly to Parliament. It is a sector in which the Executive should never be afraid or unwilling to make major adjustments. We have the clear and reasonable example of the Education Reform Bill to inspire us. I say that in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who can speak with far more authority than I about the content of the Local Government Finance Bill. Our debate is not so much about the content of the legislation as about the modalities within which the content can be debated.
There is no doubt that many people—I am among them—believe that the idea of a graduated community charge based on Inland Revenue records has more equity and practicability than the proposal before the House. Of course the hon. Member for The Wrekin was right to dwell for a moment on the effects of taxation on the political processes. It was valid for him to claim that certain taxes have become part and parcel of a controversy which has run over time. That tax issue exemplified social and economic judgments that were identified with the political participants. I dare say that that fate will await this tax. It will be several years before its final implication and execution are perceived by the public.
When considering these issues, we are not trying to deal with a short-term battle of consequences in the first half


of a parliamentary Session. I remember the great part that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who now sit on the Treasury Bench, played in the campaign against the selective employment tax. That campaign was conducted with great skill and eventually that tax foundered in derision and resentment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment may believe that he is the captain on the bridge of the flagship, but that ship may turn out to be the Titanic.

Mr. Michael Foot: The earlier part of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) almost led us to believe that he was supporting the Government's action. He spoke in such a persuasive and emollient manner that, for a moment, even one or two of his former colleagues on the Government Front Bench were deceived. However, those of us who know the right hon. Member, know him better than that.
I can summarise the right hon. Gentleman's speech even more abruptly than he summarised it himself. He was trying to tell the Government Front Bench that only a bunch of blithering idiots could have assembled on a Thursday morning and pushed through such a measure as this in the hope that they could carry it on to the statute book. Nothing so demeaning to the House of Commons or so insulting to the electorate would ever have occurred while the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North was a member of that Cabinet. The sooner they put it right the better. That is roughly what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, although he did not use exactly those words.

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman does my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) a disservice. He was a member of that Cabinet.

Mr. Foot: When was the decision taken to carry through the poll tax? No doubt the Secretary of State listened to the discussion, although we have been told that there was hardly any discussion about it in Cabinet. If the Secretary of State will reveal secrets about what happened, I dare say that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North will be eager to respond to protect his reputation. Indeed, no doubt many other dissenting members of that Cabinet would want the right to put their points of view. If the Secretary of State is so eager to jump to the Dispatch Box to claim that the decision was unanimous, the full truth should he revealed, instead of the partial truth that we have come to expect from the Secretary of State, particularly when he is defending a very weak case, as he is now.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North will not leave the Chamber, because I am about to refer to that part of his speech that appeared to support the Government. The right hon. Gentleman began with some quietening references to the whole question of procedure. He commended the procedure motion on the grounds that it did something much earlier than is normally the case with guillotine motions. He is quite right about the timetable arrangements under which these proposals are normally brought forward.
It is the case that this motion, like the previous guillotine motion that the Leader of the House introduced a fortnight ago, is being introduced earlier than usual in the Session. That is one of the reasons why I am opposed

to the motion. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has long advocated making the procedure of these discussions cut and dried. He has advocated timetable motions from the beginning of the proceedings on every Bill. He believes that this is the proper way in which these matters should proceed. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Honiton appears to have the support of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North today. He also had the right hon. Gentleman's support a fortnight ago. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North carries great influence in the House, and I am sorry to see him joining in this campaign.
I signed the hon. Member for Honiton's motion, not because I am in favour of the general proposition, but because I believe that anything is better than anything that this Government ever propose. Therefore, when they propose such a timetable motion, naturally an amendment of this type would limit it and would have some value if it were carried by the House. I am sorry that we will not have the opportunity to vote on the amendment. It would at least have helped to ensure that proper time was allocated to these different subjects under the normal procedure.
I do not believe that it would be good for the House or for the scrutiny of Bills if there were timetable motions on every Bill. I was opposed to the motion when the Chairman brought it from the Select Committee on Procedure and I strongly supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on that occasion. Although I have been known to favour guillotine motions—I shall deal with that in a moment as it has been referred to, just as I shall deal with the Leader of the House's attitude—I am strongly opposed to this motion.
I have participated in more guillotine debates than has any other hon. Member. Indeed, I have participated in these debates since 1945. Sometimes I have been in favour of them, and sometimes not. but there has never been a guillotine motion that could be justified in the way that the Leader of the House is trying to justify this one.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that when he introduced five guillotine motions in one day he used almost exactly the same form or words as those used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying:
it is a particular illustration of the malice, folly and absurdity into which right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side have got themselves that when we exercise those ancient rights it is cheating and when they exercise them it is freedom."? — [Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c.1543.]

Mr. Foot: What I said then was extraordinarily apposite. I would not dream of withdrawing a word. If the hon. Gentleman looks back into history he will see that, as usual, I was stating the case with the utmost moderation. I was trying to restrain my language, while putting my opponents in their place.
Of course I was going to refer to the day when I introduced five guillotine motions. I would not dream of apologising for that. I would be willing to give way to the Leader of the House in a moment. Indeed, I will give way to him now, as he appears eager to speak.
It is 22 February today, and the previous guillotine motion was introduced, I believe, on 1 February. There is a great difference between introducing such motions on 1


February, 10 February or 11 February and introducing them when I introduced mine. If the Leader of the House knows so much about this, perhaps he will tell the House when I introduced those motions. When was it? He is shaking his head. He rebuked me last week and said that I did not know what I was talking about. Before doing that he should have looked up the date.
Those five guillotine motions were introduced on 20 July. That is quite late in the Session. If we had not had the guillotine motions, all those five measures would have been destroyed. There is not the slightest doubt about that. They were five good measures and, as I have said, if it had not been for the guillotine motions, those measures would never have reached the statute book.

Mr. Wakeham: I was taught that fine words butter no parsnips. When the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the House, he was responsible for 16 guillotine motions in three years. I shall not go into detail, because he can do that. However, in none of those motions did he allow the four days for Report and Third Reading that are contained in this timetable motion. Also, none of them had more than 10 days for the completion of the Standing Committee proceedings, and there are 20 in this motion.

Mr. Foot: I must introduce the Leader of the House to some of these matters. He must try to grasp the point. If one introduces a guillotine motion in July, it is very different from introducing it in January or February.
If one starts to introduce timetable motions in January or February, one is moving towards the principle, advocated by the hon. Member for Honiton, of saying, "Let us timetable all measures almost from the beginning." Therefore, by subterfuge, the Leader of the House is effectively saying that we will have timetable motions on every Bill but that it will not be done by putting to the House a general motion that upholds the doctrine of the hon. Member for Honiton. They are trying to sneak it through and are attempting to distract attention by spreading great misconceptions about what happened on 20 July 1976, even though they did not have the foggiest notion of the date.

Mr. Wakeham: When the right hon. Gentleman was treating the House to a confidential recollection of those days, I thought that he might have told the House that for quite a number of weeks before that date the then Labour Government did not have a majority and were waiting for a couple of by-election results. Therefore, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are as convincing as he makes out.

Mr. Foot: I can tell the Leader of the House that I recollect the time much better than he does. I had much better reason for ensuring that the calculations were correct. Some people have said that arithmetic is not always my strongest point. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I can count the numbers in the House. There were some quite big commotions before that time.
The critical issue is that Governments have the right, in certain circumstances, to introduce timetable motions. It was right in 1976, and I justified the motions at the time. We had a narrow majority, but that was part of the argument. If we had not introduced those timetable

motions, all those measures would have fallen. I would be happy to discuss with the House what wonderful measures they were, although I am not sure that that would be in order.
One of those measures was the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the purpose of which was to protect jobs. One concerned the dock labour scheme, which again was to protect jobs. Another was an excellent Education Bill, which was supported by a potential member of the Social Democratic party. There was another excellent measure to abolish the tied house for the first time in our history. So good was it that not even this Government have dared to seek to repeal it. I hesitate to mention it, because when they see what wonderful measures are still on the statute book, thanks to the then Labour Government and the guillotine motions, they might be tempted to come forward with measures to remove them.
The problem of the tied house was solved by that Bill. It was a problem that had given rise to great injustices over many generations. It was solved partly because we were determined that the Bill would not be wrecked by opposition in the House or by opposition in the House of Lords. However, I do not want to say anything against the House of Lords now, because it might have a convenient role to play on this squalid measure that the Government are trying to push through by this even more squalid motion.
I hope that the Leader of the House will not come forward again quoting that famous day of 20 July. If he does, I hope that he will get his facts right. I know what a forceful figure he is in the Cabinet and how he bangs on the table and says, "We will not have that." I hope that at the next Cabinet meeting he will say, "No more timetable motions before 20 July." If the right hon. Gentleman will do that, he will do a service to the House as well as change the reputation that he may have about how he tells the Government to deal with the business.
One of the real troubles in the House today is that the Leader of the House has had great experience in the House, but in another capacity. Once a boy scout, always a boy scout, and once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip. Chief Whips should be elevated, but only with circumspection. Look what happened to a former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He got into trouble when he got out of his depth. That should be taken to heart by the Leader of the House, and he should be careful before he moves on to higher altitudes. He should be a little more careful in future and he should read up on history.
The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley) must have a smattering of history from the public school that he attended. I should have thought that at least one of the Ministers would have said. "You cannot have a poll tax. We cannot introduce a measure that brought about the peasants' revolt." Do Government Members not know about the peasants' revolt? Most of them are well-heeled landlords, so they should know what happened. In that revolt, the Government were defeated. They thought that they could get away with a poll tax. The history is all on the record. If there had been any properly educated members of the Cabinet, that history should have been read out when the measure was first introduced.
An excellent pamphlet on this subject was published. A famous poet laureate wrote a book about it. He said:


It is not to be wondered that this poll tax should contribute to heighten the discontents of the common people, seeing the heavy taxes … had been an intolerable burden on them, not lying so much on the nobility and the gentry as on their copyholders and tenants, who repined at these exactions, as impositions upon them without their own consent.
The poll tax was withdrawn and defeated, and the same will happen to this one. The Prime Minister should look at that example. Not even Richard II was fool enough to say that the poll tax was his flagship, which he wished to protect and sail into port. Everyone should know that what happened to him was partly a result of the poll tax that he introduced.
This is a serious matter. One part of the country —Scotland—has had a better chance than the others of discussing the poll tax. It has had a better chance partly because of the way in which the Bill affecting Scotland was introduced. I am not quite sure why the system should be tried out on the Scots in that way. I am not sure which member of the Cabinet said, "Let us see how they take it north of the border. We can try it on them, and if it works we will try it on the others." I cannot understand why they decided to try it on the Scots; nor can the Scots themselves understand why.
As even the Leader of the House should know, at the last general election the poll tax was repudiated throughout the country, as was the Conservative party in Scotland. If the Government proceed to force the poll tax down the throats of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom they will do great injury to the unity of the United Kingdom. There is great hostility to the tax in Scotland. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman goes up there, but I can assure him that were he to do so he would get a hot reception. The preservation of the unity of the United Kingdom should be a predominant interest and, on that ground alone, the tax should be withdrawn.
The poll tax will eventually lead to the defeat of the Government. Whether it leads to their defeat before or after an election rests with them, but if a sufficient number of intelligent Members oppose the tax and exercise their vote tonight, even if we do not win, if the majority is cut to 10 or 15, the effect in the other place will be considerable. That includes the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, whose advice on the matter, as on so many others, was no doubt unwisely rejected by the Cabinet. The poll tax should be defeated before it is brought to the country. By doing its duty tonight, and achieving that result, the House would be doing a service to the nation.

Sir Peter Emery: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) or, as I always remember him, for Ebbw Vale. He was in Ebbw Valean form in his speech. It was delightful in its charm and historical references, but in many ways it was entirely out of touch with what is happening in the country and with what will happen in the future when the Bill is enacted.
I do not wish to do as some other speakers have done and conduct a Second Reading debate yet again on the community charge. We are dealing with a timetable motion. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he said that sufficient time would be provided for due and structural consideration of

all parts of the Bill. That is part of my contention and what the Procedure Committee has been pressing on the House for many years.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was doing me a disservice when he suggested that I had always advocated a timetable motion since the introduction of the legislation. I did not suggest that, nor did the Procedure Committee, and it would be wrong for the House to have that impression.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), as a member of the Procedure Committee, does not wish to advocate that, but that is precisely what we have had on the Bill. Proceedings in Committee were a great pleasure because of the free-going debate between both sides, instead of Conservative Members sitting like stuffed ducks on the Back Benches. The debate has been good-natured from the start. In the early stages of the proceedings, it was rumoured that there would be a guillotine. As a result, hon. Members felt encouraged to participate in a debate which otherwise would not take place in Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) about the pleasures of serving on the Committee. However, nine amendments were tabled in respect of the title of the Bill, so that scarcely seems to represent free-ranging and massive debate about the Bill and associated procedures. We have spent 72 hours on the bill and debated only 21 clauses. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, if that pace of jovial exchange continues, we shall need up to 400 hours. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is right, but I see no reason to contradict him.

Mr. Leigh: Our debates in Committee have not always been so jovial. On one occasion, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) spoke for one hour and 40 minutes on one amendment and repeated himself frequently. I sympathise with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). Does he agree that, if the motion is passed and 150 hours of debate are granted, the Bill will have been more thoroughly debated than virtually any other Bill before Parliament?

Sir Peter Emery: The Bill will certainly have as long as almost any other Bill before Parliament, but I am not certain whether it will be as adequately debated as I should have wished.
The Procedure Committee is not suggesting that, rather than have the present type of timetable motion — the standard motion, with dates and times altered, but otherwise exactly the same as other such motions for a number of years — we should introduce a massive controlling element with all items in the Bill guillotined from the start. The Committee made a helpful suggestion which played very much into the House's way of dealing with legislation.
The only new aspect was that a Business Sub-Committee should be set up, consisting of the members of the Standing Committee, when the Standing Committee was appointed. After 12½ hours of debate, that Standing Committee, presumably with two Whips as members, should consider whether reasonable and proper progress


was being made. If so, that would be the end of the matter. However, if one or other side believed that that was not so, the matter should be decided when the date for the Bill to be reported to the House was known. When that date was known, the Bill should be pushed through with help from the usual channels.
The recommendation of the Procedure Committee clearly states:
The Business Sub-committee of the Standing Committee shall allocate the time so as to ensure that all parts of the Bill can be adequately scrutinised and every substantive proposal of the Bill considered.
Those are the same words as are in the amendment that has not been selected. That does not necessarily mean that the Committee would debate every clause or amendment, but the major and substantive matters would be debated in Committee.
If, after 25 hours, the usual channels were unable to use their influence to obtain proper progress, the business sub-committee will act, as it will in respect of this timetable motion, to set times for debate of the different parts of the Bill in Committee and in the House. We would not, therefore, have to waste another half-day on another timetable motion.
We have already wasted half a day on a timetable motion on the Education Reform Bill, and there is a great possibility that there will be other timetable motions before the end of the Session. Time on the Floor of the House should be spent on matters which are far more important than a rerun of Second Reading, which is basically what we have had today so far. Time could be much better spent debating major issues which hon. Members want debated and for which the Leader of the House can never find time.
When I first came to the House in the 1960s, a timetable motion created great political divisions. Both sides of the House were full, normal relations between the usual channels were all but broken and we debated the motion for a whole day. It was a matter of high dudgeon. All that has passed. The past 20 years have altered everything, and today we have a rather anodyne debate which gets us nowhere and allows the Government to do what we ought to be able to arrange to do through Standing Orders, as suggested by the Procedure Committee. We could then save time on the Floor of the House and ensure that every contentious issue and important aspect of the Bill was properly debated. That is what the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent wants. Indeed, it appears to be what every right hon. and hon. Member wants.
We ought, towards the end of the 20th century, to begin to have a reasonable command of how we use our time on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The sooner we do that, the better it will be for legislation and the more likely it is that the public will know that every aspect of a Bill has been debated properly.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes that all the issues will be debated properly, but there is no assurance that that will happen. I am sorry that we cannot vote on the amendment which I have tabled. With such an assurance, the Committee might have to sit on Wednesdays and Fridays. The House owes it to the people who have to put up with legislation to ensure that every

clause is debated before a Bill comes back to the House on Report. I believe that, sooner or later, we shall have to adopt that view.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree with the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and support his amendment, which has been endorsed by two former Leaders of the House — the right hon. Members for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has signed the amendment, and my colleagues and I believe that it would be the right way in which to proceed. Because, however, there will not be ordered debate of the Bill and because of the Bill's nature, I strongly oppose the motion.
Nobody has yet mentioned the salient fact that the Bill has 131 clauses and 12 schedules and that we have spent just over 72 hours in Committee spread over 16 sittings. In an intervention, I asked the Leader of the House to make two obvious comparisons. The first was the equivalent Bill for Scotland, for which the guillotine motion was brought in after 101 hours of debate and after 20 of the 35 clauses had been considered. The second was with the Rates Act 1984, which was guillotined after 18 hours of debate when six of the 19 clauses had been debated.
The Leader of the House said that this time the motion is being introduced earlier so that things can be ordered earlier and all the arguments and issues can be considered properly. Observers of the Committee do not leave feeling that the Government have considered either the arguments or the issues. One of the most amazing statements of all was made on Second Reading, when the Under-Secretary of State said:
My right hon. Friend made it clear early in the debate that the Committee will be delighted to look at any alternative proposals. I am sure that all alternative proposals will be totally unacceptable." — [Official Report. 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1184.]
If that is not an example of closing the mind before hearing the arguments, I do not know what is.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the 72 hours have been spent by his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who I notice is absent, in what I would call a perambulation around the course and that, at times, he has gone virtually backwards?

Mr. Hughes: I am glad to put on record what my colleagues have achieved. The hon. Gentleman's assertion is untrue, because the one concession that the Government have made has been in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I can provide the column number of the report. It was the only explicit concession that the Minister made, and concerned discretionary rather than compulsory punishment of defaulters by imprisonment. The event was well publicised.
We should consider which parties have moved amendments. Plaid Cymru has moved four, the Liberals have moved 15, Labour has moved 47 and the Government have moved no fewer than 49. It is the Government, whose Bill this is, who have taken up most of the Committee's time and effort. They did not get the Bill drafted properly in the first place, so they are having


to change definitions and introduce amendments and schedules to put the Bill in some presentable shape. If the Government had presented the Committee with a properly drafted Bill, they might have had a better case for asking for a timetable motion to be passed.

Mr. Patnick: How many of the Government's amendments have been moved formally?

Mr. Hughes: Quite a lot, because they were consequential. A Bill which is properly prepared, however, should not have to be amended by the Government in the first few sittings. Exactly the same can be said about other Bills. On the Committee presently considering the Housing Bill, the Minister concedes that not even all the ideas have been thought through, let alone the clauses.
We are presented with a fundamental change in the financing of local government. The Bill is long, but the Government are curbing debate much earlier than has been true of other comparable measures. The Government are rewriting the Bill as they go along, and they are not listening to the Opposition's arguments. Indeed, they are not even listening to their own Back Benchers.
When discussing the Government's failure to accept any amendments, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North used a wonderful phrase—he said that it must be an oversight. It is not an oversight. The Government have clearly determined to accept no substantive amendments. The true motive of the Secretary of State has been revealed in Committee:
We do not want one group of people making no contribution while others have to pay for everything. We want everybody to feel that they are making their contribution, however small. That is a move away from a two-class society of payers and takers, to a society where we all pay a little according to our means.
If we all paid according to our means, that might be all right. But, although the means of the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues, for instance, are somewhat greater than the means of others, it is Cabinet members who are among those who on all the evidence will benefit the most.
I wonder whether the use of the word "takers" does not tell us something as well. Is it perhaps not true that the Secretary of State views pensioners who rely on the social services to stay alive as "takers", irrespective of the fact that in the past they may have given their all? Does that not apply to any other local services that are of a redistributive nature? The clear implication of the phrase is that the Bill will redistribute resources to the wealthy from the poor. That is why the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North warned the Government that this might be their Titanic.
It is also clearly a party political measure, and the guillotine is a party political proposal. The Leader of the House said that the Bill was intended to deal with the fact that people vote for the wrong party — he actually mentioned the Labour party — because voters do not have to pay. People often vote for the Labour party, or for my party, in areas of the country where they cannot pay. They do so because they know that we are the only people likely to be able to defend them against a Government who seem to think that they and their views and their circumstances do not matter.
It is not as if the Government had been putting forward intellectually wonderful and convincing arguments to detain the Committee, either. On 26 January, the Secretary of State put the following pearl before the Opposition,

whom he possibly regarded as swine, and certainly regards as an unnecessary inconvenience. I get the impression that he regards Parliament as an inconvenience in general, and would like to be able to legislate by decree. Happily, however, after only three Thatcher terms, we are not there yet. The Secretary of State said:
The Opposition also seem to equate the ability to pay with the concept of fairness, as if it were automatic. I do not believe that it is automatic. No one has said that it is unfair that everyone should pay the same vehicle excise duty or the same television licence fee because they are not related to the ability to pay.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have realised that people have a choice as to whether they have a car or a television. They do not have to have those items. But no one has a choice about whether to pay the poll tax. People will have to pay it even if they do not have a home, or do not have an income. Under clause 2, which defines a main or principal residence, the Government have said that it is not even necessary to have a house. Dossers, tramps, vagrants and travellers have no incomes and no homes, but, say the Government, "We shall make them pay." People have not been deceived by the present Administration, and this is their crowning glory.
I accept that, in comparison with the time allowed for other Bills, four days for Report and Third Reading is generous, and to be welcomed. My objection, and that of my colleagues, is the Government seeking to limit so early, and so substantially, the time given for proper consideration of such a momentous Bill. We had considerably more time to consider the Bill that abolished six metropolitan county councils and the Greater London council, although it did not affect nearly so many people.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman said that he would deal with this point, but I do not think that he has done so. If the timetable motion is passed, we shall have debated the Bill for 150 hours in Committee. I am not aware of many Bills that have been debated in Committee for that long. By passing the motion at this early stage, we shall ensure that all the clauses are properly debated.

Mr. Hughes: I think that I have answered that point, but I shall repeat my answer. I accept that a Bill should be debated in such a way that all parts of it are debated reasonably. My quibble is not with that notion, but with the total length of time provided. For a Bill of this importance, length and complexity, we are not being allowed enough time. I cart draw all the comparisons that are available in the record of parliamentary debate on the subject.
The Secretary of State, on 26 January—obviously, it was a fateful day—also said:
Support for the present rating system is practically zero." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 26 January 1988; c. 96–98.]
According to Public Service and Local Government of October 1987, an opinion poll revealed that 26 per cent. of respondents supported the current system of rates, while only 14 per cent. supported the community charge. If support for the present rating system is "practically zero", support for the community charge is considerably less.
The Local Government Chronicle of 29 January had figures to similar effect:
Of all those questioned, 45 per cent. would choose to continue with the present rates system and only 21 per cent. would prefer poll tax … The only section of the population which favours poll tax over rates is the better off in social class AB, who will in general gain from a flat rate tax.


Guess which social class the members of the Cabinet, to a person, belong to!
Despite the Government amendments, the Bill still contains anomalies. Prisoners on remand will be liable for the tax; convicted prisoners will not. Students will receive 80 per cent. relief as of right; student nurses will not. The Bill will legislate against those who care most for the most vulnerable in the community. Already, people are not registering to vote. Today's edition of The Times reports that the electoral register in Kensington and Chelsea contains nearly 5,500 fewer names, and the paper says:
officials estimate that 3,500 of these have been deterred from registering because they believe the electoral roll will be used to enforce the poll tax.
In Glasgow, where preparations for the poll tax are already advanced, 11,000 names have this year disappeared from the register, against an annual drop in previous years of 3,000 to 5,000.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was right to refer to the only other experience that we have had in England of a poll tax. A book by someone called Marie Louise Bruce tells us:
By 1381 the peasants had a ready-made bonfire of discontents that only awaited a spark to ignite and this came in the form of a new poll-tax … it was impossibly onerous. Nevertheless revolt did not follow at once, the peasants tried a more peaceful means of evasion … They lied about the number of adults in their families".
They revolted all right, but first they tried to escape an unfair charge.

Mr. Roger King: There were no rebates.

Mr. Hughes: No, there were not. But, even without communication or a proper Opposition, they saw through the system of an autocratic Government.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No; I want to reach the end of my speech. The fact that the poll tax is not connected to people's ability to pay—except in the case of the very poorest—makes it not just a tax on people's votes, but a tax on their very lives. That is objectionable, but entirely consistent with the views of a Government who value property above people. They are willing to tax people who have little or nothing, but leave untaxed the property of those who have something or much.
Unlike many campaigns of opposition from politicians, the growing opposition to the poll tax will eventually win the day. Unusually, there is already an all-party fleet preparing to set sail to defeat the so-called flagship of the third Thatcher attack — "Flagship Futility", as The Guardian has called it. "Flagship Folly" would be a better title. The Opposition's job—and in the coming year no political job will be more nationally important in Scotland, England or Wales—is to ensure that as many members as possible of all parties and of none who, unlike the present Government, believe in the community and understand the unfairness of the charge, are the vanguard of the great people's rebellion to axe this new poll tax as they axed the last.
Any Government can ignore the community to an extent. But if they limit discussion and steamroller a Bill through the House without listening to the Opposition or

conceding to any better arguments from either side, they risk the realisation in the other place that this legislation is a foolish way to proceed and the determination of the public outside to make their views abundantly clear.
The Leader of the House began his speech by saying that the country is crying out for change. If the Government are determined not to change this legislation, they will certainly pay for the consequences.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) can take this as a compliment if he wishes, but I am sure that the Committee would not have made the progress that it has made if he had been deliberating with us.
There is an element of ritual about these debates, as has been said. As far as I can see, the speeches are kept on word processors and remain the same as the parties change. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might usefully have deleted the standard sentence, "The country is crying out for change," when he spoke about this piece of legislation, because all the evidence that I have seen shows that the more the country learns about the Bill, the less it is crying out for the change.
Having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, I do not propose to accelerate its passage by voting for the guillotine. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) have said, the House does not yet have the right procedure for deliberating the Committee stages of a Bill, and I do not propose to vote against the guillotine. Four days on Report seem a generous Government move, and it is only right to put that on the record.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked why the Bill was being guillotined at an earlier stage than the equivalent Scottish legislation. I can only assume that the English get round the course slightly more quickly than the Scots. It takes quite a long time to debate a Bill with 139 clauses and 12 schedules and with 44 Members on the Standing Committee. I can accept the mathematical inexorability of the fact that if we continued with our present rate of progress we would be forced at the end of July either to give up our summer recess or to proceed with the legislation.
The more I listen in Standing Committee, the more I think that the Government were right four years ago to dismiss the poll tax. This does not seem a sensible place at which to pitch one's tent and resist, in that this is a procedural motion to enable the Government to have the discussion completed within a reasonable time. It seems sensible on Report, when there are four days for debate, for one to reopen some of the important debates in Committee which have not been satisfactorily resolved.
I do not believe that there has been any filibustering. The more contentious parts of the legislation have been debated in the first two months and, although one hon. Member may have spoken for an hour and 20 minutes, he spoke only once, or perhaps twice, and that should not necessarily he held against him.

Mr. Patnick: Twice.

Sir George Young: It may have been twice, but, if one adds the various contributions, one speech of an hour and 20 minutes may be less than several interventions. One or


two of the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) from a sedentary position cost the Government no few minutes.
Within the rather harsh constraints of policy, Ministers have been as helpful and as patient as they can be in dealing with the debates. That they are not able to give way on the fundamental inequity of the Bill is not entirely surprising. It is important in the remaining days to discuss clause 18, to which I think we shall come later this week, which deals with the system of rebates. If the Government are to criticise alternative methods of raising local government finance in some detail, it is necessary for them to be more explicit about the details of their scheme as they may affect the poor.
So far there has been substantial progress in Standing Committee. Two of my hon. Friends—one of whom is in his place — who voted for Second Reading have several times spoken against some of the Bill's important principles and on occasions voted against or abstained. The Government have stopped referring to the Bill as a community charge and now refer to it fairly often as a tax. At the heart of the argument against the Bill is the claim that it is not a charge, but a tax. I think that five times last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called it a tax. The moment it is defined as a tax, the question of how it is financed produces some very different answers compared with when one talks about a charge.
The debate in Committee has been basically between equity and accountability. Accountability has become slightly blurred at the edges. The impact of the rate support grant on the community charge will be important. If that is not right, community charge payers can legitimately point to the Government as being responsible for the high charge in their area. Within weeks, the Government changed their perception of how much the local authority in my borough of Ealing should spend. Rate capping now reduces the rates by 25 per cent. rather than 42 per cent. If those are the shifts in the Government's perception of what a local authority should spend, they will have a big impact on the community charge. How will the Government be able to argue that the level of community charge reflects local extravagance when there can he such a variation in rate support grant?
Accountability has also become blurred in the debates about households in which the husband and the wife are out of work. The husband will get the benefit, which includes his wife's contribution, and will have to pay on behalf of both. The Government have argued, without success, that many more people will be brought into the community charge net but, in practice, because of the way in which household finances are constructed, there will be little impact.
Some people have been written out of the script. The little widow and the four wage earners who live next door to her have not appeared for many episodes. There is widespread concern about what has happened to them. I suspect that they are not appearing any more because it emerged in another part of our debate that the community charge was not that important a factor because the bulk of local government would continue to be funded through the rate support grant, which was funded by progressive taxation, and the better off would therefore pay far more than the less well-off. Of course, that argument applied directly to the four wage earners who, it transpired, were paying far more than the little old lady next door and, as a result, all five have been written out of the script.
If the little old lady and the four wage earners have been written out of the script, a new character has emerged—the gardener from Selly Oak. He is almost sitting there in the Committee with us. The gardener from Selly Oak, in some pithy and rather earthy comments, asked why he should pay as much as the visibly prosperous Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). In a nutshell, those earthy comments, by the gardener from either Selly Oak or Solihull, summarised public perception of the Bill.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: If my hon. Friend is referring, not only to the procedure, but to some of the substance of the debate, I imagine that it is in order to ask him a question. In my constituency, in what is locally called millionaires' row, the equivalent of the local tax would fall by two thirds for the average householder, whereas in the poorest road, where people would not be subject to a rebate system, charges for an average household would increase fourfold. Is that a new system that we can commend with enthusiasm to the waiting public?

Sir George Young: The opinion polls give my hon. Friend the answer that he seeks from me. I am grateful to him for his support for the fundamental argument that the community charge is unfair and should be related to ability to pay. In the remaining stages of the Committee 1 hope that the Government will explain why revaluation is unthinkable for domestic taxpayers, causing widespread turbulence, but is perfectly all right for the non-domestic sector, which has just woken up to the impact of the policy on it and is writing at some length to the Standing Committee.
A procedural motion is not the best time to pitch one's tent and do battle. More, or less, time in Standing Committee will not determine the measure's future. That will be determined by votes on the Floor of the House, by debate in the country as a whole and by the debates in another place. The guillotine motion injects a note of certainty about the dates and timing, and I welcome that and reserve my fire for the battle next month.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I wish to speak against the timetable motion.
When the Leader of the House was making the business statement last week, he should have said not that the Bill was to be made the subject of a guillotine but that it was to be axed and that it was being rejected altogether. If he had taken note and cognisance of the clear public opposition to the Bill, he would have had second thoughts. He should remember that there is considerable opposition within the Conservative party to this proposal. Those Conservative Members recognise the implications of the Bill and have serious doubts about the direction in which we shall be moving if this legislation is enacted.
On Second Reading there were many abstentions, with some Conservative Back Benchers voting against the Bill. That rebellion would have been far greater but for the fact that those holding office within the Government and those hoping to hold office did not dare to show their true feelings.
The Government claim, as did the Leader of the House, that this measure had the support of the public at the general election in June. It would be true to say that the


Tory party gave the poll tax legislation a very low profile. The Government did not make a major election issue out of it. Much of the public were not fully aware of the intentions of this legislation. However, opinion polls have shown that the more they become aware of it the more they oppose it. It must be remembered that if the votes in England and Wales for those parties who clearly opposed this legislation at the last election had been added together it would have shown that there were more people opposed to the poll tax than were in favour of it.
With regard to Scotland, which is at a more advanced stage in this legislation, the message of the voters was very clear and the Conservative party lost many seats. We have often talked about losers and gainers as a result of this legislation, and it is important that we should have done so. To some degree, this point ties in with the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). The plain fact of the matter is that the majority of losers will be those who can least afford to lose. That must be a serious criticism of the legislation. A large number of the gainers will be those who least need to gain.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said that changes should be made to the Bill as it is debated to improve its principle, and, to some degree, to rectify the problems that I have already mentioned. I know that it is of serious concern to him that the Bill does not take into account the ability to pay. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and other Conservative Members.
I fear that the Government will not take cognisance of those matters during the remainder of the Committee stage. There has been no sign that they accept that problems should be rectified. I believe that the Secretary of State is 100 per cent. committed to the legislation, although former Secretaries of State have opposed it. It has been said that, prior to 1983, the Environment Select Committee expressed opposition to a community charge. It has also been said that the Layfield committee opposed this proposal. Many people who are experienced in the financing of local government have said that it is not the way to rectify the problems with local government finance.
I accept that there are faults and anomalies in the present rating system, and that criticisms can be made of it, but to introduce a system that is worse and less fair is not the way to solve the problems involved. The Government should recognise that fact and axe the Bill.
We should have more time to debate the important, fundamental matters involved in this legislation. Many Government amendments have been tabled, which shows that the Bill was badly drafted. It was said earlier that many of those amendments were moved formally, but it must be remembered that clause 3 has been almost completely rewritten. From being a very short clause in the Bill, it is now a very long one. In addition, an extremely long new clause 4 has been introduced by the Government. The Government have made very important changes to the Bill.
We are aware that the Government originally intended to incorporate provisions in the Bill to enable prison sentences to be passed on those who do not pay the poll tax. Such a measure was not included in the Bill when it was first produced, and at present it is not included. However, when the Minister replied to a debate last week, he made it clear that on Report the Government intended

to introduce an amendment enabling a prison sentence to be passed on those who do not pay their poll tax. He made it clear that, unlike other people in prison, they will not avoid their liability to evade the poll tax just because they have been sent to prison for not paying.
By proposing those amendments, the Government have shown that they recognise the complications and difficulties that will exist in collecting the poll tax. It will be difficult to collect and there will be difficulties in compiling the register. The register will change every day, so it will need a mass of workers in town halls throughout the country to keep it up to date as people move from one constituency to another.
The Minister said that registration officers will be able to check with other local authority departments on people who have applied for library cards or grants or who are receiving housing benefit, and check against the electoral register. The Government say that it is not a tax on votes, and I accept that, but the wording that they use makes it clear that if one registers to vote one will become immediately liable to pay the poll tax. However, one does not have to vote to become liable for the tax, because the registration officer will use the electoral roll to ensure that the names shown on it are on the community charge register.
We have debated not only many Government amendments but, at length, two very important principles. The first was the ability to pay; we shall return to that issue during debates on later clauses. I have no doubt that many Conservative Members want to debate that subject at length because there is clear concern about the ability to pay. The other matter that we attempted to deal with was exemptions; we shall want to debate that issue again later in Committee. They are both extremely important issues, and if the ability to pay is not taken into account one must try to give, in a wider way, exemptions to those who cannot afford to pay, if we are to put any sense into this proposal.
As yet, we have not debated the uniform business rate. It is clear that the CBI holds a different view from the Government on this part of the Bill. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. has written to hon. Members expressing its concern and worries about the implications of the UBR on small businesses if the Bill is not amended.
Many issues must be debated at length. I fail to see that the Bill, even if it is amended, will be good. Although the Secretary of State is committed to the Bill, the Minister, with his legal background, is like a barrister who must defend a case in which he knows that the accused man or woman is guilty of murder, but he deals effectively with his brief, hopes to do well with it, and hopes for better things to come. He will be remembered as the Minister who forced iniquitous and unfair taxation on the people of this country.
If Conservative Members believe that the legislation is wrong and want to see it amended or defeated, I hope that they will support the Opposition and vote against the motion. It is important that the Bill is debated for as long as possible in Committee to try to ensure that, if the Government are determined to use their majority to force it through, regardless of the implications and the fact that it may cost them the next general election, we secure as many amendments as possible to make it work in the best way to minimise damage. We are talking about minimising the damage to society, business and the people who cannot


afford to pay taxation. That is why we need more time to debate the Bill and why it is important that the motion is defeated.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful for the chance to make a brief contribution to the debate. I hope that the Leader of the House will now consider whether we should have a debate about the procedures of the House, particularly to have a close look at the way in which we handle these timetable motions.
Along with most of my hon. Friends on the Committee, I have sat relatively quietly listening to the arguments by Opposition Members. From the outset it has been clear that Opposition Members are impaled on the horns of a somewhat uncomfortable dilemma. Indeed, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) made that point clear when he opened for the Opposition today. Opposition Members are by no means clear whether to shoot the fox or merely graze it as it passes on its way.
If the Bill really is the great Satan, as some Opposition Members tell us, if it is the Achilles heel of the Conservative party, no doubt, in their hearts, Opposition Members wish it good fortune as an important and welcome landmark for a longed-for return to Government Benches, and would not wish to detain the Bill overlong in Committee. That is why we have heard some weasel words today on the guillotine motion. That is also why I would not seek to accuse the Opposition of filibustering in Committee.
It is true that we have spent a considerable time—perhaps over-long — in Committee discussing the position in respect of the names of dead people on the register. In addition, great time was taken in discussing the name of the Bill — time that could perhaps have been spent on more important issues. After all, by any other name, a rose is still a rose. We have gone in detail—often too much detail—through all the key matters that have so far been reached.
We have had lengthy discussions about exemptions. We should restrict the number of exemptions to the bare minimum. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to say that, in the case of bona fide religious orders in which vows of poverty have been taken — where monks and nuns are outside the system of state support—the community charge will not apply. That is a good example of the reasonableness and flexibility of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues

Mr. Harry Barnes: What does the hon. Gentleman say about those who have not taken vows of poverty, but, by the circumstances in which they live, have had poverty thrust upon them? Would they not be in similar circumstances to those of nuns and monks, who rightly should be considered?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has almost answered his own point. Such people are covered by rebates. Monks and nuns, who are outside the state support system, have taken vows of poverty and do not receive benefit. They are clearly exceptions to the normal rules.
The principal reason why I support this generous timetable motion is that time will now be specifically allocated to ensure the scrutiny of all parts of the Bill. It

may not be widely appreciated outside the House that discussion of clauses relating specifically to the community charge will not really be subject to any guillotine. Only one last substantive issue—rebates—remains to be discussed in Committee, so on the key issue that the Opposition have identified as the most objectionable part of the measure, there will effectively be no guillotine at all.
In spite of the usual head of steam that traditionally accompanies debates of this nature, but which has been markedly absent this afternoon, the Government deserve to secure their business within a reasonable time scale. The Committee has been proceeding somewhat more slowly than its counterpart Committee examining the Education Reform Bill. After all, that Committee reached clause 43 in 88 hours. We have been proceeding at less than half that speed.

Dr. Cunningham: What does that mean?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member asks what that means. One of the major points that came out of the guillotine debate on the Education Reform Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The House will stick to one Bill at a time. The hon. Member should confine his remarks to the Local Government Finance Bill.

Mr. Mitchell: I apologise for allowing myself to be led up the garden path by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). It tends to happen a great deal in Committee.
We must ensure that the measure proceeds in an orderly, structured, and rapid way. Those of us who were previously involved in inner-city areas, who saw the way in which businesses were treated by Left-wing authorities in respect of rates, and who saw the consequent loss of jobs and employment opportunities as businesses moved elsewhere or simply folded up, must ensure that time is balanced to allow discussion of all the important clauses, including those dealing with the future of the business rating system.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is that the whole range of the business community, from the CBI, representing big business, to small traders, would rather keep the present system than have the system that the Government are introducing?

Mr. Mitchell: That is untrue. Most would readily agree that what we propose is an improvement on what exists. It depends whether they perceive themselves as gainers or losers. In inner-city areas of the type that I was talking about, one would have great difficulty finding any major business man who does not welcome the proposed changes in the system.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): Does my hon. Friend agree that the CBI has specifically said that, although it has reservations about our proposals, it regards them as a considerable improvement on the present system, and that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has totally misrepresented the position?

Mr. Simon Hughes: The CBI has made representations. As long as it does not have to pay so much, it prefers the proposed system. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that the business community is opposed to the Bill going ahead unamended. That applies in inner cities just as much as it applies elsewhere.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister made the key point in response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) — that the proposals are widely welcomed as a major improvement on what we have at the moment.

Dr. Cunningham: How can the hon. Gentleman say that the proposals are widely welcomed? They are opposed by the Institute of Directors, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd., and chambers of commerce, including the London chamber of commerce, the biggest one in the country. The Confederation of British Industry has major reservations about the proposals. How can the hon. Gentleman construe that as a wide welcome?

Mr. Mitchell: With respect, the hon. Gentleman sows the seeds of his argument on fallow ground. He talked about chambers of commerce. Is he aware that, for example, the Nottingham chamber of commerce, one of the largest of these bodies in the country, is in favour of the terms of the proposals? The list that the hon. Gentleman trotted out will not stand up. My experience in Islington strongly supports the view that, over the years, local businesses were driven out. More generally, business men welcome the changes that are now coming to pass. The stance of Opposition Members would be easier to understand if they were propounding or supporting some alternative structure or formula for financing local government. They are not doing so.
These matters have now been discussed for years. They formed a key part of our election manifesto. The timetable measure strikes the right balance between useful and welcome scrutiny on the one hand, and unnecessary delays on the other. We should now get on with it.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) has just displayed the originality with which he makes his contributions to the Committee by saying that a rose by any other name is still a rose. The subject that we are debating is a gross injustice and remains a gross injustice even when it is dressed up in words such as "community charge". That is why the people of Britain are calling it by the more realistic name of the poll tax and the Government have managed to persuade only a tiny number to use their phrase.
The Government are trying to shorten debate in Committee because they are suffering acute embarrassment. Every day that the Committee meets, more of the absurdities, anomalies, rank injustices and sheer in-coherence of the Bill are exposed. All that they can do is repeat what a good thing it is for the classes which it is intended to benefit.
Recently, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in one of his infrequent contributions to the Committee, claimed that the community charge would be an excellent thing for just about everyone. I asked him whether he would come to Maryhill and tell the people what a wonderful thing it was. He riposted, "The hon. Lady should come to the Cotswolds." I accepted his invitation immediately, but did he accept the invitation to Maryhill? Not on your life. He dodged it and allowed the Committee Chairman to propose the next business of the Committee.
Not content to leave matters there, I wrote to the Secretary of State accepting his invitation to the

Cotswolds, asking him when and where he wished to arrange a meeting, and asking him whether, in return, he would visit Maryhill. Today, I received a letter from the Secretary of State which I criticise in the same way as we criticise the contents of the Bill. He said:
I doubt if you would be very welcome in the Cotswolds if you were to speak against my constituents getting relief from their excessive rate burdens!
"Excessive rate burdens" in the Cotswolds? Who is he kidding? I know what I am doing by seeking an invitation to visit the Cotswolds. I know that I will find there rich, greedy people who are looking forward to benefiting from the poll tax, but I also know that I will find rich, unselfish people who do not wish to impose such a burden on their poorer friends and neighbours. Even in the Cotswolds there will be people whom the legislation will not benefit — but they will hear nothing about that from the Secretary of State. Someone must go there, and I am willing to do so any time he wants.
The Secretary of State went on to say in his letter:
I would not impose such an unpleasant experience on you. I am far too fond of you!
I am not at all fond of the right hon. Gentleman. Nor are the constituents of Maryhill, which is why, at the general election, Maryhill returned a Labour Member with a majority of 19,500. The Secretary of State is afraid to come to places such as Maryhill to put over his views, because he knows the sort of response he would be likely to get.
The letter continues:
So shall we call it all off?
My response is no, certainly not. My invitation stands, and I want to visit the Cotswolds. The final sentence states:
The place for us to debate is in Committee Room 10.
That is exactly what we want to do. He is the one who is calling off the debate by imposing a guillotine on it, yet he says the place for us to debate is Committee Room 10. Well, I shall have to do that, since he will not come to Maryhill. I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's cowardice in this respect. I thought that the man who came to Clydeside to close our shipyards would not be afraid to come to Maryhill and tell us about the poll tax.
I make a bargain with the Secretary of State. I forewarn him about the points that I shall make if someone invites me to visit the Cotswolds. I shall ask people whether they think it sensible that prisoners on remand will pay poll tax if found not guilty, but will be exempted if they are found guilty. I shall appeal to their common sense.
I shall ask the women in the Cotswolds whether it is fair that they will have to pay the same poll tax as their husbands even if they earn nothing or a half or three quarters of what their husbands earn. I shall ask the women whether they think it fair that a wife will be jointly and severally liable for her husband's poll tax, as he is for hers, regardless of her ability to pay. Indeed, some women will have to ask their husbands to hand over the money so that her poll tax can be paid. Talk about a return to Victorian values!
I shall ask the cost-conscious people—the ones who wish to save money on local government — if it is sensible to introduce a system that will cost twice as much to collect as the present system. I shall ask the people who own second homes whether they think it sensible that they must pay the same standard poll tax whether their little holiday retreat is a country mansion or a small home with an outside toilet.
Above all, I shall ask the people of the Cotswolds whether it is right that the well-off farmer should pay the


same poll tax as his labourer. I shall ask the City fat cats who travel to London every morning whether it is right that they should pay the same poll tax as the milkman, the postman and the man who sells them their tickets at the railway station.
I shall have a great deal to say when I visit the Cotswolds — if anyone asks me — and I shall be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State intends to visit Maryhill.

Mr. David Shaw: I support the timetable motion. For the past 15 years, during which I have been involved in politics, debate has centred on the fact that the current rating system is unfair and must be replaced. That replacement is almost on the statute book, and it is time that we allowed the opportunity for a full debate on it.
The community charge is necessary because many people will benefit from it, including about 2 million single old-age pensioners. It was a surprise to me to hear the Opposition members of the Committee wishing to deny the benefits to those 2 million old-age pensioners.
We have seen much literature suggesting that the community charge is unpopular. But that has been false literature produced by Labour councils, often at public expense, or by local Labour parties.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Why is the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils completely opposed to the poll tax?

Mr. Shaw: I am fully aware that many organisations, Conservative and otherwise, have reservations about some aspects of the community charge. But whether others oppose it or not, it is certainly true that the current system is unfair and does not treat people properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said, it is unfair to the old-age pensioner living in a house next door to four wage earners. During my four years on a council, I observed the number of households that did not pay fair rates because they had four wage earners in the family.
The Labour party has stirred up opposition to the community charge, and my constituents have written to me quoting Opposition literature. In reply, I have pointed out that, if the community charge is introduced on this year's figures, it is likely to he £151 in Dover compared with £600 or £700 in Labour-controlled areas, such as Brent, Camden and Islington.

Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shaw: In a moment.
The key point that I make to my constituents is that it is better to have a well-run borough council and gain the benefit from it than a badly run borough council and suffer the disbenefit. In the Bill we are introducing a system whereby efficient local authorities which care about ratepayers' and taxpayers' money can demonstrate that fact to the benefit of their locality, unlike councils which could not care less.

Mr. Pike: When the hon. Gentleman replied to his constituents, did he point out that over the country as a whole the majority of those who will lose as a result of the legislation are those who can least afford to lose, while a substantial number who will gain least need to gain?

Mr. Shaw: I do not accept that. In Committee we have frequently given the Opposition the facts, statistics and

exemplifications from the Department of the Environment which show the large numbers of people who will gain. We have also seen anomalies, but these are less than under the present system of rates.
The Opposition have frequently said that the community charge will be unfair. The Secretary of State in his generosity has given the Opposition the opportunity to suggest alternative proposals, but they have failed at every stage. That is why we have to debate this timetable motion: we cannot get sensible alternatives from the Opposition, yet they spend a great deal of time arguing that these proposals are unfair.

Mr. Dykes: I agree with my hon. Friend that the principal Opposition have not put forward any meaningful ideas so that debates are taking place within the Conservative party and, to a lesser extent, among alliance Members. How does my hon. Friend deal with the awkward point raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in this debate and in Committee — that it is all very well constructing a theoretical idea that one can make a direct measurement between the extravagant and the non-extravagant authorities—presumably Tory-controlled authorities are the latter and Labour-controlled authorities the former—with this new system, but as it is most likely, because we live in a wicked world, that the central Government resource allocation input system, now to be called revenue support rather than RSG, will be manipulated by the Department of the Environment through its incomprehensible computer system just as it has been in the past, the whole system will become wholly otiose?

Mr. Shaw: I, too, have severe reservations about the rate support grant system and the way it has operated in the past, but all that we and the Government can do is try over a period to move to a fairer, better system under which the people who pay more will be those who are foolish enough to elect a local council which wastes money. Surely what lies behind amendments to the rate support grant system in recent years is the attempt to penalise the extravagant and to benefit those with good husbandry.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede publicly that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who represents Plaid Cymru, and my two hon. Friends who represent the Liberal party on the Committee have throughout clearly stated our view that a local income tax is a fairer and more acceptable alternative. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government should support that, even if the proposition must come from our parties because the Labour party has not yet decided on its alternative?

Mr. Shaw: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, but if he had the benefit of serving on the Committee —I realise that he is employed elsewhere—he would have learned that under a local income tax system, a nurse living in Camden would have to pay 26p in the pound. That is a phenomenal sum. Even if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer manages to reduce income tax substantially in the Budget, it would take her rate of taxation above 50p in the pound. Local income tax is not a fair or reasonable alternative to the community charge. Time and again it has become clear in Committee that the Opposition have no alternative to the community charge.
The motion is about making progress on the Bill and I hope that some of my remarks have shown that it is necessary to do so. Not only is this the only Bill before the Committee but it is the best Bill that the Committee could have. The Opposition have been taking far too long to make their points. Speeches lasting 20 minutes or more are common and 15-minute speeches are the rule. I would not object to that if it were not for the great amount of repetition.
Countless times I have heard the Opposition suggest that people will evade the tax. It shocks me that they can suggest that so many people are keen on tax evasion. [Laughter.] It is staggering. What is even more amazing is the number of Scottish Opposition Members who comment on that. Scottish Members seem to spend most of their time trying to make out that the people of Scotland are utterly dishonest. Indeed, if I were not married to a Scottish lady, I should have severe doubts about what the people north of the border get up to. In time, the Scottish version of the community charge will be seen to benefit Scotland as it will help to control local authority expenditure.
One message comes across in Committee. Not only do the Opposition not want to hear of the benefits from the community charge, but when they appear to listen they do not seem to want to understand. That is a critical reason why we are debating this motion.

Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman says that we do not listen to the benefits of the poll tax. Can he explain to the 94 per cent. of my constituents who will lose what those benefits are likely to be?

Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman will arrange for me to visit his constituency, I shall be delighted to explain to his constituents the benefits of the community charge.
It is important to consider the quality of the debates in Committee, particularly some of the statements about the costs of the community charge. We have had wild and extreme estimates, and references to hundreds of millions of pounds of computer costs. The House will be pleased to know that I have managed to obtain more accurate figures which I hope to bring to the Committee's attention in the next few weeks. The Opposition's figures have not been based on fact, nor have they been checked or audited. One often wonders whether the statements are solely for the purpose of playing to the gallery. They are certainly not to further the debate. The timetable motion will mean that the Opposition talk more sense and less nonsense.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke earlier of Government amendments taking time in Committee. There have been many Government amendments to the Bill, but they were sensible, necessary and useful in assisting the administration of the community charge. They were speedily dealt with.
I cannot avoid one aspect of our discussions in Committee. Occasionally, and regrettably, we have heard some intemperate language from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Perhaps that was because he was tired of listening to speakers on his own side. I say that because Conservative Members have taken up little time. Our speeches have been brief and to the point.
I believe the Government want to give the Bill a fair chance of being discussed, which is why they have brought in the timetable motion. The House should support it.

6 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes: I want to discuss some of the arguments deployed by the Leader of the House when introducing the timetable motion. First, he argued that an excessive number of amendments had been tabled in Committee, especially on the first clause, which is only five lines long. Clause 1 deals with some of the basic principles of the Bill and categorises three different forms of poll tax or community charge that can be levied. So the amendments to clause 1 provided an opportunity to debate the wider implications of the whole measure, and the debate, at that stage, was worth while.
It has also been argued that the time spent on changing the name from the community charge to the poll tax was excessive—but to call the tax a community charge is a fraud. The name "poll tax" is clearly understood and honest, and it allows us to discuss the Bill's general principles. As such, it is well worth full discussion. I am a person who likes discussing words, ideas and principles and I see nothing wrong with that.
It might be well worth while for the Government to consider exactly what the Bill is about. It does two things. It switches wealth from one sector of society to another, in line with principles shared by most Conservative Members, who believe that investment emerges in that way. We disagree with that. Other elements in the Bill concern the excessive powers being given to central Government, carrying on from other legislation that dealt with rate capping and other matters of local government. The Bill is a further extension of provisions that give considerable authority to central Government.
Many of the Conservative Members in Committee need to reflect on whether they are really happy about so much authority being passed into the hands of central Government, and about local government beginning to disappear as an effective force and becoming a mere cypher, acting on decisions that have already been made centrally. Is that healthy for democracy and the dissemination of different views and interests? Is it good for concessions and compromises in society?
The Leader of the House also used the answerability argument, about which we used to hear a great deal in Committee. We used to hear how, as all voters paid the poll tax, their involvement made them and local councils responsible, accountable and answerable. Strangely, some of those arguments have now started to disappear. We had a debate in Committee about joint and several liability. It blew away once and for all the idea that the Bill is in some way about answerability. If, for example, a husband deserted his wife—did a runner, as they say—she would be jointly and severally responsible for payment of the outstanding poll tax moneys.
There is no essential link in the legislation between the payment of the poll tax and the exercise of the vote, and it would be nonsense if there were. Often, the head of the household might pay out the money for the whole household, and presumably, under a system of accountability, he would have to exercise a right to vote several times in line with the moneys he had paid out. Thus, the notion of accountability has begun to disappear; so has the notion that democracy is somehow enhanced by the operation of the poll tax.
It has already been mentioned that the poll tax discourages electoral registration. The Bill may provide for the electoral registrar getting hold of registers that are being compiled and reinstating people on them, but there will certainly be a desire to hide from payment. That will have an adverse effect on the universal franchise. As one of the Ministers has rightly said, this Bill will have a major effect on the franchise—the greatest since the early years of the century, and probably since the 19th century. It is the first move that we have had away from the universal franchise, rather than towards its extension.
Worse, the Bill attempts to fix the results of elections. Pressure will be applied such that Conservative councils will be the only option for election — not merely Conservative councils, but Conservative councils of a particular political flavour, which will keep poll tax levels down. If Labour or alternative parties try to operate, they will be allowed to do so only to the extent that they function in accordance with those same principles. How is that Hobson's choice a democracy? Surely a democracy should allow people to choose between alternatives and offer an avenue through which the poorer members of society can seek redress of some of the imbalances within it, so that money is paid by the wealthy to those who are poor. The Bill tries to exclude from the system an option in the democratic process.
The Leader of the House also used the argument that the poll tax was in the Tory election manifesto, so the Government could go ahead with it. That is one of the most pathetic arguments that could be used. There is no mandate for the poll tax: a mandate requires a full and frank up-front discussion during an election, which did not happen in England and Wales. That is perhaps, to some extent, the fault of the Labour party for not drawing attention to the tax as a major issue, as it should have done. If it had done so, some of the consequences in Scotland would have occurred here, too. The only area in the nation in which the tax has been considered fully and frankly is Scotland, where it was firmly rejected by the electorate. The Labour party was glad to have the opportunity to use the issue to fight an effective campaign there, and I hope we shall soon be doing the same in this country.

Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentleman said that the only place in the country in which the poll tax was mentioned in the last election was Scotland, but I mentioned the community charge many times in my election campaign in June last year, and was returned with a majority of almost 20,000.

Mr. Barnes: It is a matter of degree; the issue was certainly mentioned in the election, and there was some publicity about it in the media, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman was the only element that determined the result in his constituency. We all know that elections here are much more presidential than that, depending a great deal on the party platforms that are argued across the country.
Such argument failed to take place in England and Wales on that occasion. Many of us tried to raise the issue in our constituencies but it was swamped by other issues that the Goverment sought to raise during the election. They staged propaganda campaigns about "reds" and raised "white surrender" scares. They were the major items considered during the campaign. It is only in those areas

that the Government could possibly claim to have a mandate, but they do not have a mandate for this detailed bit of legislation or for many of the other measures that are passing through the House.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why the campaign against the poll tax was so effective in Scotland was that it was coming into force there a year earlier than in England? That concentrated the minds of Scottish people. Likewise, recent opinion polls in England and Wales have shown that people there are becoming more and more opposed to the poll tax.

Mr. Barnes: I agree with my hon. Friend. The immediacy of the issue concentrates people's minds upon it and brings it to the front of their minds, causing them to discuss their own circumstances and the problems that they will face.
There should not be a timetable motion. We need more time to discuss the issue in Committee so that the reality of the poll tax can begin to dawn on some of the Conservative Members. They need to be able to draw together the strands of their alternative position and decide upon the extent to which they will support Opposition amendments. The hon. Member for Acton (Sir G. Young) is seen as the major Conservative rebel, but in some ways he needs to get his act together and decide where he stands on various issues. He supports the idea of excluding student nurses in the same way as university students would be excluded and proposed amendment No. 72 in relation to that. That fell because a Government new clause was introduced.
In the vote on an amendment by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), which was a substitute for amendment No. 72, the hon. Member for Acton is recorded in the Committee Hansard as voting against. On another occasion an amendment was brought forward under clause 11 by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and there is no record of a vote by the hon. Member for Acton. He either recorded a no vote or was absent when the vote took place. I confront him with those matters, but if I have got them wrong I shall apologise to him. He has faced three ways on one issue and needs to be much more solid.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has expressed reservations in the House and is in many ways a pale shadow of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton in terms of his opposition. Presumably he is adopting a Fabian attitude, and his strategy may be to bide his time until the opportunity is exactly right. Then he will strike and vote with the Opposition on specific amendments. I hope that that is the case.
The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is seeking a small poll tax, and his amendment, which is to be discussed later, will move money towards the central Exchequer. If that happens, it will aid the process by which central Government have control and authority over what takes place at local level. It will get over the problem of imbalance and injustice and some of the unfairness of this measure. However, it will not tackle the issue of considerable centralised control. I hope that the hon. Member for Kensington will think of some fallback position to try to get the best that he can out of his own ideas and values. I have said that in Committee.
The answerability argument has gone out of the window and hon. Members using it in Committee have


lowered it considerably. It has yet to dawn on Conservative Members that central Government are operating massive powers. Some Conservative Members are strong advocates of free enterprise and competitiveness and are worried about monopoly control and development. For that reason, they should be worried about the development of centralised control.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is not in the Chamber and is seldom seen in Committee. She adopts a very anti-state stance and is worried about centralised control. The House Magazine reports that she has on her House of Commons writing paper the legend:
The state is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.
If the hon. Lady thinks that the state is such a fiction and a corrupting centralised organisation, why is she willing regularly to vote for advancing the powers of the Secretary of State? In this measure the Secretary of State and in other measures other Secretaries of State are given enormous enabling powers. The Secretary of State will be something of a municipal Mussolini, but perhaps without the charisma that Mussolini had.
Conservative Members in the Committee need time to think the measure through and time to talk about their ideas before having them discussed in Committee. Labour has embarked on a listening campaign, and I was pleased to listen to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) because those were the first words that I heard from him. The hon. Member for Gedling made, as it were his maiden speech on the poll tax, and his views must be considered.
My final point is on a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). It has been said in Committee that a measure is to be brought forward on Report to introduce imprisonment as a fallback for those who do not pay the poll tax. That measure should be brought forward and fully considered in Committee and afterwards on the Floor of the House. I ask hon. Members to vote against the timetable motion.

Mr. David Wilshire: As a new Member, I am continually surprised in this place, and this debate is no exception. This is the first guillotine motion debate that I have sat through. I had assumed, apparently wrongly, that I would be confronted by row upon row of indignant Opposition Members shrieking about censorship and the lack of time to deal with the Bill. Instead I see row upon row of total contentment, because I have always found that when people do not turn up it means that they are entirely happy about what is being done. I can only assume that the contentment on the Conservative side is mirrored by contentment on the Opposition side.
One other matter that surprised me is that I seem to be sitting through a Second Reading debate. We have heard all the reasons why the community charge is good or bad, why it should be introduced and the reasons for holding it up. However, we have not had much discussion about the guillotine motion. That is why I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) who said that perhaps the Leader of the House might find it useful to look at procedures. We ought to be discussing how we can have a sensible debate during the rest of the time that the Bill is in Committee. I have sat through most of the 72 hours so far and I did not recognize

much of a sensible debate. It has been fairly repetitive and nit-picking. I welcome this chance to help impose some sort of structure on the rest of the debate, because some fundamental issues have still to be discussed.
Much has been said about the business rate but not much has been said about the change in the grant system. Eleven years in local government have taught me that the current grant system is understood by hardly anybody. When one does discover a bit about it, one sees that it is something of an absurdity. We must spend a sensible amount of time getting the grant system right. I hope that we shall also put some structure into the Committee from now on and will be spared further ramblings about the rating aspects of grand prix racing tracks and about when full-time cohabitation becomes part-time cohabitation. If we are spared more of that sort of debate, I shall be grateful.
The issues that seem to have occupied most hon. Members do not have much to do with the guillotine motion. The first argument that sticks in my mind is that, because there is no precedent for this legislation, it should be given extra time. But I have heard hour upon hour of discussion about what happens in Scotland. I have heard for hour upon hour from hon. Members representing Scotland. I keep being told that there is a precedent.
We have also been told that we should delay it because everybody is against it. My mailbag, my supporters and my council do not suggest that. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) causes some excitement only by saying that the ADC is against it. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to go beyond that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I was making the point that every representative body of local government of whatever party is completely opposed to the proposals. The hon. Gentleman's own council may be in favour of it, but no letter has yet appeared in the Library showing that any council is wholeheartedly in favour of it. The hon. Gentleman must accept that no representative group of local government, north or south of the border, supports the measure, and it has been opposed by local government throughout the country.

Mr. Wilshire: In view of the time, I shall not rise to that. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my comments in Committee, which are well reported.
The last argument to which I shall refer is that we have not been listening. I have listened to the best part of 72 hours, I have listened until my ears ache, and I have yet to hear anything to make me change my mind. The measure is a good one, and the sooner it reaches the statute book the better.

Dr. John Cunningham: All hon. Members who have spoken have agreed that the Bill, because of its importance, needs thorough and proper scrutiny. As several hon. Members have said, we are not talking only about a personal poll tax. We are talking about a Bill that will introduce a national business tax, under ministerial control. We are talking about a new grant system for the allocation of about £13 billion of public money each year. We are talking about proposals that will give Ministers budgetary control and poll tax-capping powers covering every local authority in England and Wales. We are talking about the future—it is not clear from the Bill


whether there is a future—of discretionary expenditure under what is at present section 137, the 2p rate, which is used by local authorities of all political persuasions for local matters such as economic development and the support of voluntary organisations and charities in their communities.
A large number of important issues still have to be considered by the Committee. It has always been, and remains, the intention of the Opposition that such matters should be thoroughly and adequately debated. That is why we have not sought to waste time. In spite of one or two comments to the contrary, it is generally recognised that there has been no deliberate time wasting in Committee by the Opposition.
Conservative Members who have been supporting the timetable motion have not recognised that there has been no White Paper about the proposals. The Government have not published the responses to the Green Paper on the proposals. The Government have consistently hidden that evidence from Parliament and from the Committee. Had that information been published, it might have saved the House and the Committee some time during their consideration of these issues. The Government gain nothing by being secretive. It is precisely for that reason, and for similar related reasons, such as the late publication, or availability in the Committee, of the Government's intentions on students that the Opposition have had to force debates and table amendments to seek clarification from the Government. We make no apology for that. After all, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the Government have tabled as many amendments to the Bill as anyone else.
It is also the case that the longest single speech made in Committee was made by the Minister for Local Government, who spoke for almost two hours in response to a very important group of amendments. I do not criticise him for that. I did not criticise him at the time. He tried, within the limitations of the principles embodied in the Bill, to respond to questions put to him in Committee, and he was right to do so. I am not complaining about that. It may be necessary for the Minister or for the Secretary of State to reply at length in future. If it is necessary, it is a proper and legitimate function in the Committee's consideration of such measures. It was a measure of 131 clauses and 12 schedules when it was published. Now, several new clauses have been tabled by the Government, in addition to all the amendments.
The measure is dubbed the Government's flagship, and as such I should have thought that everyone, including Conservative Members, would welcome a most painstaking scrutiny of it. After all, they would not want to spoil their flagship for want of a little paint and a ha'p'orth of tar. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) likened it to the Titanic. I suggest that perhaps it is more likely to end up like the Mary Rose. It may not get through its launch or its maiden voyage. It may capsize under the weight of its own inadequate design.
As I understand the motion, which the Leader of the House commends us to accept, we shall have approximately 70 hours more to discuss the issue. On the face of it, that seems generous. Several Conservative Members have made the point that we shall now have some structured debate and the timetable will guarantee the proper scrutiny of every aspect of the Bill. It will do no such thing. At each stage within the timetable, the

guillotine will fall, whether or not there has been proper scrutiny of each clause in that section of the timetable. The timetable brings no such guarantee.
Indeed, 70 hours, when there are still more than 100 clauses and several schedules to be discussed, does not guarantee on average—although I accept that averages are not always meaningful—one hour of consideration in Committee per clause. It is not nearly as generous as the Leader of the House seemed to imply. The procedures of the House simply are not adequate to deal with measures of such a size, nature, complexity, and on which there is a dispute between parties. That seems to have been self-evident for many years.
Several hon. Members who are new to the House have said that this is the first time that they have taken part in a debate on a guillotine motion. I have taken part in a debate on a guillotine motion. I have taken part in several such debates from both sides of the argument, from the point of view of the Government, and from the point of view of the Opposition. I have to confess straight away that political head-standing is rather difficult for politicians, who generally do not make very good gymnasts. I think that it has something to do with the fact that the centre of gravity of most politicians is higher above the waist than it should be for them to perform good balancing feats. In some hon. Members it is too far above the shoulders.
The procedures of the House are not adequate, whatever the Government may say. The hon. Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is laughing about centres of gravity. He is the last hon. Member who should be laughing, although I have to concede that his centre of gravity is well down, if I can put it delicately. Perhaps he will be rather better than some of his colleagues at this kind of balancing act. I have no doubt that the Government planned the presentation of this timetable to the House when they were planning the whole of their parliamentary year. Notwithstanding that, the Government have tabled, and will continue to table, a large number of amendments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) made an entertaining speech, but he could have taken a much earlier historical analogy. If I have learnt nothing else today, I have learnt that I can gain access to the Bible for reference by asking the Clerk of the House for the key and opening the Dispatch Box—something that I have never yet done. Since historical analogies seem to be in order in giving dire warnings to the Government—I hazard a guess that a right hon. Member with an address like "The Old Rectory" knows this already—I can give a much older analogy than the peasants' revolt. Here is a quote from St. Luke, chapter 2:
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
We have been along this road a lot earlier than the peasants' revolt, and the outcome has always been the same. Those proposing such taxes have ended up on the losing side. We have seen that most recently in Scotland, and I have no doubt that we shall see it again.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is trotting out rather tired metaphors about ships, gymnastics and now the Bible. When will we hear the Labour party's proposals?

Dr. Cunningham: I thought that I had heard Conservative Members say that this debate was about the


timetable and not about the merits of the Bill. I am not speaking about the merits of the Bill, but I would be more than happy to do so when we return to Committee tomorrow morning, as long as the hon. Member will promise me that his attendance will be at least as good as mine when we are discussing these matters—something that he has signally failed to do so far.
I say, most kindly, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent is a traditionalist in these matters and his views depart slightly from mine. Having said that, I believe that the proceedings of the House are inadequate, and are regularly demonstrated to be inadequate, and I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). It would be in the interests of the House if time were found to debate the second report of the Procedure Committee in the 1985–86 Session, which sought to bring the attention of the House to these matters. The problem is, and remains, one of inherent conflict between the views and the objectives of the Government and the views and objectives of the Opposition. It will be in the long-term interest of the House to make a serious attempt to resolve these matters, although I do not necessarily agree with everything that the report says.
Hon. Members may be asking themselves why I shall vote against the guillotine motion. It is because, in the end, like all its predecessors, it is being imposed arbitrarily by an Executive which already has too much power over Parliament in these matters—a power that is long overdue for redress.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The debate has been so relaxed and friendly that there has been time for some merriment. We have had added to the "gardener chappy" in Selly Oak, the municipal Mussolini, from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
We had the delightful speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and that of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who commented on my education, saying that it has been a good education. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent had a good education himself. He went to Leighton Park school and then on to Wadham, where presumably he learned a little history. He might get it right. When the poll tax was introduced, King Richard II was 14, so we cannot blame him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) thought that the Bill might turn out to be the Titanic, but at least it could not be as bad as the efforts of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, who lost four out of his flotilla of five Bills that he guillotined in that one famous afternoon in July, which all turned out to be Titanics.

Mr. Leigh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on that famous occasion when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) attempted to poleaxe consideration of five Bills, one young Labour Member said:
I have not yet had the advantage of being in opposition and I do not intend to be in that position. 'Winner takes all' is an ugly phrase, but that is how the system works. If a party wins a General Election, it is the winner who takes all until the people are again consulted within five years … We are

considering whether the Government are entitled to see that they carry out what they are mandated to do. That is what a guillotine motion is all about."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1654–55.]
The hon. Member who said that was then the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, but is now the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who led for the Opposition today. Surely people in legislative glasshouses should not throw stones.

Mr. Ridley: That is typical of how these guillotine debates go, but it is not for me in the few minutes that remain to say what will be the right way for the House to debate these matters in the future.
Having spent 72½ hours considering 21 clauses, including five new ones, and two schedules, including one new schedule, we must make a little more progress. The Bill contains another 115 clauses and 11 schedules, which means that, on the basis of progress so far, we would be sitting until the end of July.
There has been a marked lack of urgency on the part of the Opposition. We have perhaps been too accommodating. The start of the Committee was delayed from 19 January to 21 January because the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was out of the country. We helped him further with an early finish on 28 January to enable the Opposition to attend a local government conference, at which they continued their fruitless search for a policy on local government finance. Perhaps we should give them another afternoon to pursue that, because they have not yet found one. On Thursday last, 18 February, they asked for the whole of the afternoon session, which once again we gave them. By these means, we lost 13 hours of debate—nor did we receive much progress in return when we did sit.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Secretary of State admit that, to facilitate that granting of time, we did not debate the sittings motion?

Mr. Ridley: I am going back to the point that we have not had the progress that we need.
From time to time, when the Committee has been sitting, little progress has been made. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), perhaps one of those who has spoken for longest, could be described—in the words of one of his friends, the former hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan in the Committee which dealt with the Scottish legislation — as suffering from natural verbosity. Then there was the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), which took so long and was so incoherent that the Committee became inquorate and hon. Members had to take refuge in the Corridor outside.
Apart from such long-winded contributions from Opposition Members, the discussion has been amiable and has ambled along, but slowly. The atmosphere has been congenial and the debate has been generally constructive. In response to arguments advanced by various Opposition Members, the Government have willingly taken away a number of points for further consideration covering joint and several liability, register entries concerning deceased persons and remission from payment by the courts on the grounds of poverty.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that only one such undertaking had been given and that that had been given to one of the Liberal Members on the Committee. However, that is not


right. Three or more undertakings were given. Indeed, I must tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that I cannot tell the difference between a Liberal, Welsh nationalist, or Socialist opposition in Committee. There is no difference at all between them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: I will not give way.
All the concessions that we offered are important. They are intended to improve the system that we have proposed and I am grateful for that. However, none of the arguments advanced by Opposition Members has in any way dented the principle of our proposals. Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), whom we welcome to the debate, at times seemed to hope that the timetable motion would be introduced soon, as it was the only thing that would concentrate the minds of his colleagues. Twice in Committee—on 28 January and 2 February—he predicted hopefully and wishfully that the timetable motion would he introduced on 11 February. He was clearly hoping and longing for it and wanted it as soon as he could get it. He will be delighted that it has been introduced now.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is a week late.

Mr. Ridley: Yes, the hon. Gentleman would rather have had it earlier. As the debate has borne out, very few hon. Members have been present, and at one point I thought that there was a danger that we might have run out of hon. Members wishing to speak. The opposition to this motion has been as weak, wobbly and wishy-washy as it was in Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: When the timetable motion on the Education Reform Bill was before the House, My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that he would try to ensure that all parts of the Bill would be adequately scrutinised and that every tentative proposal would be examined. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment give the House the same assurance about the local Government Finance Bill?

Mr. Ridley: Indeed I will. However, principally the Opposition must decide how much time they want to give to each section of the Bill. Their judgment must prevail. They must decide how to divide the time that remains. It is my ambition to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery).
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey drew a comparison with the progress of the legislation to introduce the community charge in Scotland. A timetable motion was introduced for that Bill after 101 hours of debate on 20 clauses which provided for a further six sittings to deal with the remaining 14 clauses. The point is that the timetable motion before the House now will allow a further 19 sittings and 83 hours of debate on the remainder of the Bill. By introducing the motion at this stage it is possible to ensure that fuller debate is given to all aspects of the Bill than was possible for the Scottish Bill. We have supplemented that, as has been much appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, because we have recommended four days for Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State accept that the argument that other hon. Members and I have advanced is that for a Bill of this importance we need to ensure that, if possible, every important matter should be debated and if the Committee believes that it has not unduly delayed matters, it should be allowed to run its natural course?

Mr. Ridley: That will be the case. If we do not waste time, there will be time for all matters to be considered.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin drew attention to the National Opinion Poll carried out last week. I found its conclusions very comforting. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not set much store by these polls. It concluded:
The Conservatives still hold a clear lead in these key areas.
All those hopes, that the charge would lose the Conservatives political support and would rescue the Labour party, seem to have been dashed. Indeed, in a typically generous passage in his speech, the hon. Member for The Wrekin said that he wanted to put public interest before party interest and he would therefore not hold up the Bill because it was in his party's interests that it should get through as the Conservative party would lose votes. Only a week ago there was a vital county council by-election in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Campaigning under the community charge, the Conservatives, in the form of Warren Hawksley, won a seat from Labour.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation or time to Bills).

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 223.

Division No. 190]
[6.45 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John (Winchester)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butcher, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chope, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Churchill, Mr


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cope, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Curry, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothfeny)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Devlin, Tim






Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Durant, Tony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Farr, Sir John
Latham, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Franks, Cecil
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


French, Douglas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gardiner, George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maclean, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Madel, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Major, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Malins, Humfrey


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mans, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grist, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Ground, Patrick
Mates, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mellor, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Miller, Hal


Hannam, John
Mills, Iain


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Christopher
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moss, Malcolm


Heddle, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mudd, David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neale, Gerrard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Needham, Richard


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Paice, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Irvine, Michael
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jackson, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Janman, Tim
Portillo, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Powell, William (Corby)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David





Raffan, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Redwood, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rhodes James, Robert
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thorne, Neil


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thurnham, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rost, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Viggers, Peter


Scott, Nicholas
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walters, Dennis


Shersby, Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhiil)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Speed, Keith
Whitney, Ray


Speller, Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stokes, John



Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Tapsell, Sir Peter



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cartwright, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashton, Joe
Clay, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Coleman, Donald


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Crowther, Stan


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob


Blair, Tony
Cummings, John


Blunkett, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alistair


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dewar, Donald


Buchan, Norman
Dixon, Don


Buckley, George J.
Doran, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Callaghan, Jim
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth






Eadie, Alexander
Madden, Max


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Faulds, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Fearn, Ronald
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fraser, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Fyfe, Maria
Morley, Elliott


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Murphy, Paul


Gordon, Mildred
Nellist, Dave


Gould, Bryan
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Graham, Thomas
O'Brien, William


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Parry, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pike, Peter L.


Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Henderson, Doug
Prescott, John


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Home Robertson, John
Radice, Giles


Hood, Jimmy
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Reid, Dr John


Howells, Geraint
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Illsley, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Ingram, Adam
Ruddock, Joan


Janner, Greville
Salmond, Alex


John, Brynmor
Sedgemore, Brian


Johnston, Sir Russell
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Short, Clare


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Snape, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Steinberg, Gerry


Leighton, Ron
Stott, Roger


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Terry
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Livingstone, Ken
Turner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Vaz, Keith


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wall, Pat


McAllion, John
Wallace, James


McAvoy, Thomas
Walley, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wareing, Robert N.


McFall, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wigley, Dafydd


McKelvey, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Maclennan, Robert
Winnick, David


McNamara, Kevin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McTaggart, Bob
Worthington, Tony


McWilliam, John
Wray, Jimmy





Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Frank Haynes and



Mrs. Llin Golding.


Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 24th March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 24th March may continue until Ten p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 25th March 1988.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time

7. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall,


instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Local Government Finance Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Aircraft (Near Miss)

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has come to my knowledge in the past 10 minutes or quarter of an hour that there has been a reported near miss off the east coast of Aberdeen over the North sea. It was between a Royal Air Force F4 Phantom aircraft and a Bristow helicopter carrying 30 passengers. The difficulty is that the Ministry of Defence is refusing to give any information, on the ground that it has to wait to see whether the Bristow helicopter pilot reports the matter to the Civil Aviation Authority as a possible near miss. I understand that that has now been done.
I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have received any request for permission to make a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport, who is present—I apologise for not having given prior notice, but the matter has only just come to my attention—or from the Secretary of State for Defence, to whom I have spoken by telephone.
The problem is that during Transport Question Time this afternoon we had a fairly vigorous and vociferous exchange about air traffic control and passenger safety in general. I am astounded to learn that since Question Time there has been an announcement that there are to be severe restrictions on traffic into Heathrow during the summer because of the serious problem.
We are entitled to raise such issues when accidents and near misses of that kind occur, yet the Minister does not divulge such information at Question Time, when he must be aware of it. I do not know how close the aircraft passed. According to one report, they were within half a mile of each other. A Phantom F4 in a steep dive creates a great deal of turbulence and could well upset the flight of a helicopter. I hope that a statement will be made, if not tonight, then certainly tomorrow, because matters are getting seriously out of hand.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I cannot comment at the moment, but I shall make inquiries of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and Defence and then contact the hon. Gentleman later this evening to decide how best to proceed.

Orders of the Day — Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill

As amended (in the Select Committee and on recommittal in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

Dr. Reid: Of Private Eye.

Mr. Bottomley: It is not too clear who the private eye was on that occasion.
Spokesmen on the Opposition Front Bench raised several issues. I do not accept all their strictures, and I suggest that they, the members of the Select Committee and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have confidence in the way in which I normally approach issues. I am not regarded in

the Department or in Parliament as the sort of person who accepts a brief and reads it out. That is not my way of approaching things, and I should be sorry if people thought it was. The hon. Member for Bradford, South—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister has raised an important point. This is not a matter of personalities. There is no question of the Minister's competence or character here. As the Minister has said, he did not have the opportunity to go through the same long process as the members of the Select Committee. That makes an important difference.

Mr. Bottomley: I honestly wish that I had appeared before the Select Committee, because if I had it might have been possible to move slightly away from the manner in which the Select Committee procedure has to work under present rules. Under those rules, the petitioners put their case, and the promoters' case is not described in the way that it is described in annex A, which describes the straight factual side of the relationship between wind exceeds and restrictions on the flow of traffic.
Three major issues were put to the Select Committee. The first was what sort of wind there would be. The second question was what effect it would have on restrictions on traffic. The third question—in effect the trial within the trial, which is where commercial confidentiality comes in —was whether it was possible to add 3 m high wind-shielding to the existing design. Commercial confidentiality was not the issue at the base of the hours of wind. That was a separate issue.
It is worth saying that Dr. Cook is a recognised expert, and nothing that I have said was designed to undermine that in any way. It was his work that described the hours of exceedence as being plus or minus 40 per cent. Obviously, there is no doubt about the integrity of the proposed bridge, where Dr. Cook's work leads to a confidence factor of plus or minus 5 per cent. That is far more useful than plus or minus 40 per cent., which gives a wide range.
The issue of commercial confidentiality exercised the Committee to some extent and in some strength, but dealt with the subsidiary issue whether it was possible to adapt the existing bridge design and put 3 m high wind-shielding on it. It is quite clear from my experience around the world, and from research that has been carried out, that there is no bridge with a 3 m high wind shield across an estuary. The closest was the Europa bridge in Austria which had to contend with the fhön wind, which could sweep up suddenly at 80 miles an hour.
I spent a fair amount of time looking at Japanese road reports. Japan has a 21-mile stretch of road that goes over bridges that do not have wind-shielding. I have here the annual report on roads from the Japan Roads Association. In it there is a picture of the Seiun bridge on the metropolitan expressway. There is one cable-stayed expressway. The Seiun bridge is a different type of bridge, with no wind shields. If wind shields were in any sense common and appeared on, for example, 10 per cent. of the bridges currently under construction, there would be more of a basis for saying that the Department is wrong.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister accept that the same principle would have applied to the Severn bridge in 1966? That was the world's first box girder bridge. The Minister is saying that nothing must ever be done for the first time.

Mr. Bottomley: No, I spend most of my time arguing the opposite; arguing against the historic negative that one cannot do something in a new way because it has never been done that way before. I am not arguing in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The addition of limited wind-shielding is acceptable.
In that context, I should like to pick up some of the points made in the debate. Without the persistent concern of Essex and Kent county councils, I do not think that the partial wind-shielding would have been brought forward in the first place. It was not suddenly produced as a pre-emptive measure three days before the Select Committee started its proceedings. Obviously, work needs to be done to test whether partial wind-shielding would have a good effect and whether the bridge could stand it. One needs to take those issues in the round rather than try to divide people into camps or try to mislead the Select Committee or decide to what extent one side of the argument may have exaggerated or gone up to a 40 per cent. tolerance one way or the other.
The speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South showed that interest in this subject is not confined to those who served on the Select Committee. I sometimes wonder, when the hon. Gentleman starts shouting and accusing people of being childish, whether he is moving away from the substance of the debate and on to other approaches to politics.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the hybrid Bill procedures. The House is considering opposed private Bills. Hybrid Bills are slightly separate. Perhaps the usual channels will consider what has been said tonight and whether an improvement can be made to the hybrid Bill procedure.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. It has been argued that, because the hybrid Bill procedure produces quicker results in planning terms than the formal planning procedures, of necessity it can never be challenged because it might cause delay in the initial programme.
The other difficulty is that, when we debate such matters, inevitably partisan terms are used. When we are putting a non-party point, I object to hon. Members saying across the Floor of the House that while in previous years I have argued for more jobs, because I wish these issues to be properly and thoroughly discussed I am in favour of losing jobs. That partisan element makes it difficult, under the present procedure, to speak objectively.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCHEDULED WORKS

7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove from the Bill a requirement that the bridge should be designed so that wind shields are or could be fitted to reduce the effect of wind on vehicles on the bridge to not more than that on vehicles on the approach roads to the present crossing.
The House and the Government are grateful to the Select Committee for the thorough examination of wind shielding and other issues put to it through 20 days of hearings in the autumn. The Government's response to the Select Committee covers disquiet at the way the case was presented on the question of wind shielding. It explains that we are looking at that question and the lessons to be learned from it. I hope that we can now concentrate on the substance of the amendment.
A special tribute is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who sat through every minute of the hearings. Some of what I shall say will be all too familiar to him and his colleagues. I shall describe the new work commenced since the Committee's hearings as a direct result of the Committee's work and the petitioners' cases.
At paragraph 14 of its special report, the Committee referred to the difficulty that it faced in assessing evidence of a highly technical nature on which experts disagreed fundamentally. That is not surprising. The problem is not new. It arose in connection with the Channel fixed link proposals.
The methods used to calculate the frequency at which winds blow are not claimed to have a high degree of accuracy. Although the methods advocated by Dr. Cook of the Building Research Establishment for the purpose of structural design are very good for forecasting maximum speeds—he says that they are within 5 per cent.—the estimate of the number of hours in a year during which a gust exceeding a given speed will occur has a margin of error of up to 40 per cent. It is not surprising that there are disagreements.
This issue is really about traffic management. It may involve abstruse structural engineering and meteorological theory, but it is fundamentally about the management of traffic in high winds which, in the south-east of this country, are fortunately rare.
We have considered the experiences at certain windy sites in Great Britain. There are three places which have experienced continuing problems—the bridges across the Severn, the Forth and the Humber. At other places, there are sometimes speed restrictions and the odd closure from time to time. An overall strategy does not deal with the problem. The relevant authorities solve the problem at


each location. Restrictions imposed range from speed limits through lane restrictions to closure to wind-susceptible vehicles—high-sided vehicles, caravans and the like. Complete closure is very rare. The Severn bridge has been closed completely three times in 21 years. The Forth and Humber bridges do not close.
From the inquiries that we have made during and since the Select Committee hearings, there is a consensus about the wind speeds which cause difficulties to traffic. All those to whom we have spoken in this country with experience of controlling traffic at windy places say that restrictions are considered on wind-susceptible vehicles when gusts of wind reach 50 miles per hour. Some authorities consider restricting the number of lanes in use usually at gusts of about 40 miles per hour, so that vehicles are not blown sideways into others in the adjoining lane. Whether those restrictions are imposed depends on the direction of the wind and traffic behaviour at the time. If the wind is not troubling the traffic, the restrictions are not imposed. The decision is very much one for the man on the spot. In the case of Dartford, that will be the crossing manager, advised by the police. The contract with DRCC — the Dartford River Crossing Company—stipulates that the police decision on this is final.
How often will it happen at Dartford? That is impossible to say with certainty. Some estimates have been made. Annex A of the response shows the results of applying the methods that the petitioners used to calculate how often the wind blows at certain speeds at various sites throughout the country and how often it has been necessary to impose restrictions.
The Meteorological Office has checked the estimates for Dartford against data from four anemometer sites in the Thames estuary. Our estimates for Dartford are of the same order as the Meteorological Office data. We are content about the estimates obtained by the forecasting method. If anything, they could be on the high side.
The annex indicates, as one would expect, that the higher speeds are experienced much less frequently than the lower ones. It indicates that the authorities have not thought it necessary to impose restrictions on wind-susceptible vehicles until gusts of about 50 miles per hour are reached. This appears not to vary with the density of traffic.
There are locations on the list which carry as much, if not more, traffic than this bridge will. One is the Thelwall viaduct.
We believe that the wind speeds at which restrictions have to be introduced—threshold speeds—recommended to the Select Committee by the petitioners—35 miles per hour for lane restrictions and 45 miles per hour for closure to wind-susceptible vehicles — do not accord with experience.
We do not believe that the estimate of hours at which gusts reach a certain speed necessarily translate into hours of restriction. The nearest bridge sites in the list to Dartford are Orwell and Medway. There has been very little trouble there.
It is reasonable to expect that things will be much the same at Dartford. We draw attention in the response to the Mar Dyke viaduct, immediately north of the present tunnels. The petitioners' forcasting method indicates that we might have expected traffic restrictions there. There have been none.
There is a feature of suspended bridges which makes them different from other roads—the presence of pylons or towers which hold up the cables. Mr. Brian Smith of Flint and Neill gave evidence to the Select Committee. He explained to the Committee that, at the Severn bridge, the towers caused problems in high winds because, as vehicles are masked by them from the wind, drivers correct steering only to emerge suddenly into the wind again. I can vouch for that. When I was at the Severn bridge the other day, it was one of the windiest days of the year. I stepped out from behind a tower to be struck by a wind 20 knots faster than it had been in shelter. An official who did the same nearly lost his spectacles. Just over half the incidents at the Severn bridge in the years 1984 to 1986 could be related to that effect.
There is a good case for graded shielding adjacent to the towers at Dartford. We have been told, since the proceedings of the Select Committee, that a similar solution has been adopted at the Little Belt bridge in Denmark with success. This shielding is relatively cheap, about £300,000 and will cause no redesign problems. It will be provided.
Eliminating to a large degree the effects of the towers will make the bridge more like an ordinary exposed stretch of road. It is right and fair to say that the persistency of the county councils led the bridge designers to come up with this idea. It is also being considered for the present Severn bridge. At Dartford, there will be some protection all the way along the bridge from the parapet which will be a metre high above the level of the road surface with 30 per cent. porosity.
That is very different from the Severn bridge where the top of the parapet, below the level of the road surface because of the way in which the bridge is constructed, gives no protection to traffic from wind. If that feature reduces the wind speed at road surface level, even by a little, it will add protection to traffic.
Procedures will be needed for diverting traffic through the tunnels in case of a serious accident or major maintenance, not just because of wind. We are confident that, without causing massive delays, it will be possible to segregate wind-susceptible vehicles from others, as it is at the Severn and other bridges and to divert them.
At Dartford, they will not face a detour of many miles. They will go along a slip road into the eastern lane of the east tunnel in which there will be two-way working on those occasions. There is no evidence that that practice is unsafe. Two-way working in the tunnels is normal practice when one of the Dartford tunnels is closed for maintenance.
Up to 1980, there was only one tunnel which operated with two-way traffic for 17 years, during which 140 million vehicles used the tunnel. Motorists will be informed by signs further back along the M25 when restrictions are in force. Nearer the tunnel, there will be gantry signs showing which lanes are closed. Such signs are common on the motorway network. If wind-susceptible traffic is being diverted, special signs will be switched on. There will be manual supervision of the entire process by the people who operate the crossing. There will not be interviewing of drivers, as there is at the Severn bridge, and any vehicle which appears to be wind-susceptible will be directed off the bridge. On the Kent side, it is practicable to ensure that traffic mixes again safely.
It will be possible to divert all the bridge traffic into the east tunnel if the bridge has to close. It will be for the


crossing manager to decide which of those facilities he would use on any occasion. At night, for example, with light traffic, it might be simpler to close the bridge and divert all traffic.
The total crossing offers great flexibility. The bridge provides a fallback if there are problems in the tunnels and the present tunnel management, the police and motoring organisations regard the use of the tunnels as a perfectly practicable and acceptable way in which to deal with problems on the bridge. Some details remain to be settled, and we shall speak again to them and to local highway authorities. It is not possible to do this at any other crossing. Everywhere else, a long diversion is necessary if the bridge cannot be used. That is one of the reasons why the Government are considering wind-shielding on the second Severn crossing.
The Select Committee heard evidence from the petitioners to the effect that the present bridge design could be adapted for £5 million to £6 million and that there will be no more than a few weeks' delay in design. The nature of the adaptation proposed was, in our view, questionable. Substantial last-minute alterations should not be made to a major bridge design without taking great care. That view is now confirmed independently by a Danish designer — Mr. Aksel Frandsen — who has no connection with the Department or DRCC. The full report is in the Library. There is a brief summary of it in the response.
He confirmed that if there is to be full wind-shielding of the kind proposed by the petitioners, there must be a fundamental redesign of the bridge deck. He also confirmed that the delay estimated by DRCC—18 to 21 months — for redesign and extra construction time is realistic, although two or three months might be shaved off with luck. The estimated cost of full shielding varies between £15·25 million and £18·75 million, depending on the design of the bridge in relation to the present toll booths. Nobody can be sure of the exact cost at this stage, but it must be of this order.
Whether the lower or the higher of the two estimates of cost increase is taken, there would have to be amendments to the toll regime provided in the Bill, because it would no longer satisfy the cash flow conditions stipulated. In simple terms, DRCC would not have enough cash in the early years of operation to service its debts to those who are to finance construction of the bridge. To restore the current expectation that tolls would cease after 14 or 15 years and continue for a maximum of 20 years, an increase of about 6 per cent. in the real level tolls would be required.

Dr. John Reid: How can the Minister calculate that the difference between income and expenditure in the early years will be too tight for the toll regime when DRCC could not give the Select Committee any estimate of its income in the early years or for any given year? Does he have information which has been produced since the Select Committee met, or was there information available which DRCC did not make available to the Select Committee?

Mr. Bottomley: It is generally accepted that calculations were made to get to the 14 or 15-year estimate in the original proposal. I imagine that that was accepted by the Select Committee.

Dr. Reid: I think that the Minister said that the differential would be tight in the early years. I am not talking about the 15-year sum. I am asking how he can tell the House that, in any one of the early years, the income would be insufficient to meet the DRCC's requirements if that company cannot give us its estimate of income in any of those early years.

Mr. Bottomley: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has gone through more of this than I have, at least in the Select Committee—I have had it somewhat at secondhand. If we take as the base line the calculation on the original estimated cost and take the flow of revenue before the bridge is open as a given level and add, say, £16 million to the cost of providing the bridge before there can be extra capacity, it is quite clear that the difference between interest payments and revenue must provide a great effect. I do not know whether I put it sufficiently clearly to explain it, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has another point in mind.

Dr. Reid: No, I have not. I am asking the Minister a simple question. If he does not know the income for any of those early years, how can he tell me whether the bridge will run at a profit, at a loss or how tight it will be? If we do not have that fact in the equation, we cannot assert what the Minister asserted. If, however, the Minister has the information necessary to make that assertion, he must have information which was unavailable to DRCC when the Select Committee met, because the company refused to give us that information.

Mr. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be pushing the point in rather more detail than the debate needs.

Dr. Reid: It is a crucial question, is it not?

Mr. Bottomley: It has been asserted that tolls would have to rise by 6 per cent. in real terms. Whether that is 5.5 per cent. or 6.5 per cent. is not at this point directly significant. The fact that there would have to be extra income to fund the extra spending should be accepted on both sides of the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The general proposition, that if more money is spent more money must be collected and therefore the toll regime may have to be re-examined, is common sense and clear. What puzzles us is that the Minister asserted that, in the early years of the crossing, the toll regime would be too tight to warrent the additional expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is trying to find out why that information was not available to the Select Committee.

Mr. Bottomley: I hesitate to repeat myself, but the level of income does not affect the assertion that an extra, say, £16 million of costs adds significantly to the capital cost of providing the bridge. In the early years, the debt rises dramatically, as has happened with several other bridges funded by tolls. In the later years, it is less relevant because, if the early years are under control, the later years look after themselves.
To what extent DRCC was able to say it did or did not know precisely what the revenue would be depends on the amount of traffic. If traffic rose at 17 per cent. a year, it is possible to calculate, at any given level of toll, what the


income will be. It is also possible to estimate what change must be made to the debts that need servicing by looking at the capital cost. It seems to me as simple as that at that level of analysis. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman needs to illustrate a case, if he accepts the suggestion that an increased capital sum would be needed for redesign and for wind-shielding, he will be able to argue that in a speech and I shall try to respond to it, but I think that we have probably taken the matter as far as we can at this stage.
It is unlikely to be possible to amend the Bill to provide for this increase without readvertising the amendments and inviting petitions in respect of them. We would have to question whether such a solution offered the best value for money. The Select Committee considered the costs of and the benefits to be gained from wind-shielding. The petitioners carried out some cost-benefit analysis. We have, too.
In our latest calculations, we assume that the estimates of wind forecast in the annex to this response will be borne out in practice and that restrictions would be imposed at the same wind speeds as they are at the Severn. We have carried out a careful analysis of the delays to traffic that that would cause during the next 30 years before and after tolls come to an end. The result was strongly negative, indicating that full wind-shielding was not justified on economic grounds. One of the reasons for that was the substantial cost to traffic in delays while the redesign took place. The capital cost did not match the savings either.

Mr. Terry Dicks: How recent was the investigation, and who carried it out?

Mr. Bottomley: I think that I might wait until I have heard the rest of my hon. Friend's speech before answering that question.
Members of the Select Committee will be aware that this is not an exact science. Widely differing views were put to the Select Committee and, understandably enough, it made its decision. During the past two months, the Government have had the benefit of thinking through these matters again. In the light of the Select Committee's hearings and taking further advice, the Government have come to a judgment different from that of the majority of the Select Committee and have been confirmed in their view by evidence that is now available. Given all the evidence, we cannot justify the extra cost and delay for the rare occasions on which restrictions will be necessary.
I am content to be held responsible for this decision. I carry the can. We are asking the House to accept the amendment not simply because of the delay and the cost, or to assist the policy of private financing, or because we are the friends of anyone, but because it is right.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We see before us a fascinating example of what happens to Government buiness that is mixed up with the hybrid Bill procedure, but a clause stand part debate might be a more appropriate time at which to discuss whether the procedure is a good one.
Let me first associate myself with the tribute paid to hon. Members who served on the Select Committee—both for their perseverence in the many hours through which they sat and for their close attention to detail. It is clear from an examination of the minutes of evidence that the decision to add the words that the amendment seeks to remove was not made capriciously. The Select

Committee members did not do it because they felt a bit upset about getting up early after a bad night; they did it because they had examined the evidence seriously, and believed that there was a serious point to be made.
To be fair, the Minister has conceded that the Select Committee arrived at its decision having weighed the evidence in the balance. It must be difficult, with such technical matters, to decide which experts are giving the best advice. Before we consider that, however, the Minister must answer one or two questions.
We can argue about the quantity and severity of the problems on the Severn bridge, but it is a fact that problems have been caused by lane closures and the restriction of movement by high-sided vehicles because of wind pressures. Given those problems, it is astonishing that, when it was decided to go ahead with the crossing, the effect of wind turbulence on traffic never entered the Department's mind. Apparently the design brief contained no recommendation for an analysis or appreciation of those effects, although everyone knows that wind turbulence is caused by high-sided towers or blocks.
The Minister has described his recent experience at the Severn, when he stepped from behind a pillar and was nearly blown off his feet and either he or one of his officials nearly lost his spectacles. As is no doubt common knowledge among architects, wind breaks sometimes have to be erected in high-rise housing blocks where people walk out of the door and are nearly blown off their feet. There is considerable debate about wind turbulence in technical journals: surely the designers of bridges must know about its effects.
After the hours of debate in the Select Committee, and the responses that it received, it is not good enough for the Minister to tell us merely that the Select Committee has a point, and that the Government will meet that point just so far by introducing partial wind-shielding. That means that drivers of high-sided vehicles would gradually find the pressure on the sides of their vehicles increasing, and be able to control it, without being suddenly blown off course by a blast of wind. The Minister must tell us first why the initial design brief did not examine the problem, and secondly why he is turning down the idea of full wind-shielding.

Mr. Dicks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a spokesman for Mott, Hay and Anderson, agents to the Government, said that wind-shielding was just a matter of weather forecasting? That was the emphasis that he placed on the need for a close examination of the problem.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that that was what was said. In that context, the paragraph in the Select Committee report which stated that the Committee was extremely unhappy about the way in which the evidence was presented has even more point.
We must consider the short-term and the long-term future of the bridge. I fully accept the point that I think the Minister is making: the need for the river crossing is urgent and it is long overdue. The present two tunnels cannot cope any longer, and something must be done to relieve the congestion. On the other hand, if the Minister has got it wrong and the bridge will be closed to high-sided vehicles more frequently than he would like to think, so that vehicles must go back down the twin tunnels—one of which, presumably, will have to be closed to traffic


going in one direction, so that traffic can move in the other direction — how much delay and congestion will that cause? In a sense, it is a question of what is acceptable.
There is an old saying used by fishermen, and indeed seamen of all kinds: why spoil the ship for a hap'orth of tar? Is it reasonable to accept restrictions, given the problems that might be caused in the future? We are not speaking about five, 10 or even 20 years from now. We should consider the forecasts of increased traffic being generated in London, and the fact that every road improvement scheme seems to generate its own traffic over and above any official forecasts. It is almost a law of nature that any such forecast can be multiplied by x. The traffic generates itself. If the Select Committee's advice is not taken, extra congestion may build up to reach the proportions that are currently generated in the area, possibly for longer than the Minister would suggest.
I appreciate that, when it comes to accepting the advice of experts, in a sense you pays your money and you takes your choice, but a risk is being taken. I do not refer to the safety of the bridge; the safety of the traffic is at issue. The number of days for which the bridge will be closed will affect the amount of disruption that is caused.

Mr. Tim Janman: The projected number of hours of lane closure for the east London river crossing, only eight miles up river, is 25 hours a year. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the projection for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing of 24 hours a year is likely to be inaccurate?

Mr. Hughes: I believe that long periods were suggested. One figure suggested was 17 hours of lane restrictions a week, which I think translates to 880 hours a year. Other evidence suggests a figure of 550 hours a year, or 10 or 11 hours a week. That might take place in the middle of the night when there is not much traffic around anyway. If there are 17 hours of lane restrictions a week—only time will tell whether that is accurate—hon. Members who were so vociferous in their arguments against wind-shielding may find themselves under heavy pressure from their constituents, who have remained quiet so far because they have not thought it necessary to make a fuss.

Mr. Janman: I asked the hon. Gentleman why he felt that, given the projection of 25 hours of lane closures a year at the east London river crossing only eight miles away, there was any reason to believe that the projection of only 24 hours of lane closures a year at Dartford was inaccurate. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the consultancy firm that projected the 500 hours of lane closures a year at the Dartford-Thurrock crossing projected half that number for a bridge across the Channel?

Mr. Hughes: I shall not be diverted into a debate about what would happen with a bridge across the Channel. Had that company won the design and provided for no wind-shielding, there would have been one hell of a row, as we all know.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) asked why I should reject the expert advice that there would be 25 hours of lane closures a year at the east London river crossing compared with 24 hours a year at Dartford. I suspect that when we deal with the east London river crossing in detail we shall have the same argument because different experts will come forward with different views.

Dr. Reid: As an illustration, does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's projections for a cross-Channel bridge, which was of similar height and was to cross an exposed channel, referred to lane restrictions which turned out to be less than their predictions for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing?

Mr. Hughes: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but I do not want to be diverted to a debate on the Channel crossing.
There are many views on the exact number of hours of lane closures. I even concede a point which, I recollect, was not made by counsel in closing speeches. Even if there were a maximum of 17 hours of lane closures a week, much of that might be in the middle of the night, when there was not much traffic anyway, so I am almost giving half a point to the hon. Member for Thurrock. I should have thought that, if there were 17 hours of lane closures a week, that should be taken seriously. The Government have done so. That is why they have said that they do not want the words in the Bill. I hope that the Minister said that they will provide partial wind-shielding. At one stage he almost said that the Government would consider doing that. We must get it right.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Partial wind-shielding will be provided.

Mr. Hughes: It will be, provided the House does not reject the Government amendment.
We must consider whether to accept expert advice. All members of the Committee suggested that wind-shielding could be provided by light plastic windshields of sufficient strength to do the job without adding to the weight of the bridge. I am inclined to accept the view that, if wind-shielding is provided—whatever the materials—redesign will be needed because of the effect on the bridge's stability. One cannot get away with saying that wind-shielding can be provided for the whole length of the bridge without affecting the design. If we believe that the wind will affect high-sided vehicles, causing them to veer, it is obvious that wind-shielding will lead to bending stress on the bridge, which must be considered in redesign. I am prepared to accept that if there is to be full wind-shielding there must be a full redesign.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will pursue the point of the early years of a toll regime versus the later years. I accept that if more capital, and therefore more borrowing, are required, resulting in greater costs, there will have to be a new toll regime. I do not understand why that bothers the Minister. If the product is better and the customer is not diverted as often as he could be, he might be perfectly happy to pay an increased toll for the better service. I do not think that it makes any difference whether the tolls are collected over 20 or 25 years so long as the balance is right.
The Bill says that the crossing has 20 years to get its money back with tolls. If the money is recovered within 15 years, ownership of the bridge reverts to the Department of Transport. If at the end of 20 years the tolls have not paid for the cost of the bridge, it still reverts to the Department of Transport, and the banks or whoever put up the money have to stand the loss. It is a risk. If we overload the cost of the bridge, we should give the company another five years to get its money back or allow it to impose a higher toll to get its money back within the same period. Risk capital is involved.
The Minister is in a dilemma. He wants the bridge to be built by risk capital, but he is frightened lest he scare the risk capital away.

Mr. Janman: Although the cost element is important, far more important is the delay, as the hon. Gentleman accurately stated. Does he think it worth delaying a major project, which is urgently needed, for 15 to 18 months simply because there will be 24 hours of lane closures a year, much of it in the dead of night when there is hardly any traffic?

Mr. Hughes: I shall answer that question in my last sentences.
If the toll regime must be changed, that can readily be done. There is the choice whether to increase tolls or give the company a longer period in which to get its money back. We must decide one way or the other. It comes down to whether a delay—a delay of 18 to 21 months may be reasonable; I do not know—is worth having to get the project right. The answer is yes.
I suspect that, if the normal planning procedures had been followed, the bridge would not have been built for another 14 years. The Government have chosen to cut corners by having this legislation considered under the hybrid Bill procedure. They should not cut corners to the extent of arbitrarily deciding that 18 months is too long to wait to get the job right and to ensure that there is not great traffic disruption. It is always difficult to forecast. I suppose that I am safe to forecast that I shall not be a Member in 20 years' time. I have no intention of emulating my predecessor, who stayed here until he was 83, which in my case would be much more than 20 years more in the House.
I am willing to forecast that if the bridge is built according to the design put forward by the Minister, there will be so much disruption and concern that within 15 to 20 years—possibly even sooner—there will be demands for partial wind-shielding to be converted into full wind-shielding, however that is done. Perhaps — I do not know whether I am making a defence for the Minister—bridge design will have advanced in 50 years' time and that will be a possibility.
We have no Whip present. I do not know whether the Minister can say the same for the Government; the danger is that Government business is whipped. Having seen the evidence, and having discussed and thought about it, I do not believe that we should support the Government's amendment. We should do what the Select Committee did and insist on full wind-shielding.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for being called because I was Chairman of the Select Committee that examined the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister has reminded us that it met for more than 20 sitting days. According to my calculations, it was in session for 111 hours. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words of approbation, and I should like to say how much I appreciated the assistance of my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). I note that all the members of the Committee are in their places tonight.
To help the House, I shall make one or two points to show the problems that the Committee faced. As has been said, there was complete disagreement on the basic elements leading to the judgment whether the bridge should have wind-shielding. There was complete disagreement among the experts who were called by the promoters and petitioners. Somebody might say, "You must be a rather naive person if you feel that experts will not disagree." The other Members of the Committee will support me when I say that the disagreement was so fundamental and complete that it caused us great concern.
The disagreement was in three sectors. Although many years ago I qualified as an architect, I am a complete layman in the technical details of bridge design. There was disagreement about the frequency of high winds. There was a 50 per cent. disagreement between the two expert witnesses called by the petitioners. There was more than a 50 per cent. disagreement on the frequency of high winds between the most conservative estimate of the petitioners and the statutes that were given by the promoters. The leading expert witness called by the petitioners — the prestigious Essex and Kent county councils—was none other than Dr. Nicholas Cook, who is the senior principal scientific officer and wind engineering section head at the Department of the Environment's Building Research Establishment. The petitioners therefore called the leading Government expert.
There was complete disagreement about what the delay would be before the bridge was completed. As my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, the petitioners said that the delay would be only six weeks, and the promoters said that it would be about 15 to 18 months. As to the extra cost — my hon. Friend the Minister reminded us of the figures—the petitioners said that it would be about £5·4 million and that there would be no need for a fundamental redesign of the bridge. The promoters said that it would cost between £15,250,000 and £18,750,000 and that it would involve a fundamental redesign of the bridge.
I do not think that the Committee was helped by one or two aspects of the promoters' case — the promoters being the Government and the concessionaires. The promoters were reluctant to give information about the design of the bridge when it was requested by the Committee.
The promoters—I want to put their case as fairly as I can and I hope that, as Chairman of the Committee, I am being impeccably neutral — claimed commercial confidentiality, and they may have been right. However, that begs two questions. The lesser question is, at what point does commercial confidentiality not need to be kept? They had been appointed to build the bridge. For how long do they need to keep that commercial confidentiality, which presumably would go as soon as construction of the bridge began?
7.45 pm
The more important question that one should ask—and it is right that the Chairman of the Committee should do so — is, if the promoters are using parliamentary procedures—it is the Select Committee's job to hear the evidence of the petitioners—surely we are entitled, for the benefit of the public, to demand information so that the matter can be properly examined.
Given the scale and technical nature of the petitioners' case, I believe that we should have been given other


additional information—not only the information about the design of the bridge—by the promoters. I shall give one example. We did not have annex A, which was attached to the Minister's response and which gave information of wind speeds at 13 major road bridges in Britain and the details of the traffic restrictions that are imposed on them. While a little of that information dribbled out over the 15 days, it would have been helpful to have that table.
Two matters have become apparent to me, and members of the Committee can disagree with me if they wish. I believe that, because of the detail and complexity of the technical evidence, we should have had, from the outset, a technical adviser or specialist who could have guided us and saved a little time. The time that the Committee took had nothing to do with the competence of its Chairman, but everything to do with the pace set by the petitioners' counsel, who I gather was on a rather larger salary than the combined salaries of the Committee. Surely we should have had, from the outset, that technical advice, which the more general departmental Select Committees can call upon. I leave that thought as a possible change that might be made in future procedures.
The fact that the experts would disagree profoundly must have been realised before the Committee met. Even though we took the decision to hear the petitioners' case on wind-shielding on 28 October—at first the promoters said that we had no locus to do so, so we had to take evidence on that — there were six weeks between us making our decision and the end of the Committee proceedings. The promoters were slow to respond, at least.
At best—I must say this to my hon. Friend the Minister—the independent advice that my hon. Friend has since acquired should have been instigated shortly after 28 October at the latest. It is only two months since the Committee reported. Given the time scale of six weeks between 28 October and the last sitting of the Committee, the promoters could have been more ready and willing to provide us with the information that we needed.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of wind-shielding the bridge, it was little wonder that the Committee, by a majority of five to one, took the decision that it did, given these circumstances. As Chairman of the Select Committee, I did not vote. In the parliamentary tradition, I shall continue to adopt impeccable neutrality tonight. When I fall off the fence on to the bridge, whether or not it is wind-shielded, I hope that I shall fall on the right side of it and that it is a soft landing.

Dr. Reid: Much as the Minister would like it, I do not intend to attempt to condense 111 hours of evidence into a 10-minute speech. That is beyond even the abstractive powers of the various hon. Members who were asked to sit on the Committee. It should not be necessary to repeat what took 111 hours to weigh up in the 21 days on which we sat in judgment, but that is what the Government are asking us to do today. Although it was an arduous task to sit on the Committee for 21 days, I note as I look around the Strangers Gallery that there must be some people who are gluttons for punishment. There are one or two familiar faces. Such are the passions that the issue has aroused.
The Minister's contribution was no counterbalance to the tons of evidence that the Committee had to sift during 111 hours. Indeed, if we put on the scales of justice or of rationality the contribution of that 21 days, along with the

Minister's case, which, with great respect, appeared to be an anecdote about how his official lost his spectacles on the Severn bridge, we would find the Government's case this time around as wanting as their previous case.
It may be of interest to hon. Members who have remained in the Chamber to know that I have no subjective interest in the matter. The Dartford-Thurrock crossing is not continually in the minds or on the lips of my constituents. It is not a matter of common discussion in the bars of Bellshill or on the streets of Shotts. I have no interest other than the public interest. It is obviously not of ideological interest to me or to my party, as hon. Members can see, judging from the Benches behind me. The proposed wind shield is not even to be constructed of steel, so, from that point of view, no one can accuse me of having a localised interest.
I ask the Minister and other hon. Members to accept that my interest is purely that of any hon. Member who is put on a Select Committee—that is, to pursue the public interest for the best possible reasons and to the fullest possible extent, to ensure that Parliament defends the interests of people outside the House who feel that their interests have not so far been served by the Government. That was the function, approach and philosophy of the Select Committee throughout its deliberations.
In their response to the Committee's report, the Government were fulsome in their praise. They referred to a long and arduous series of sittings spread over 21 days. They thanked us for our full and painstaking examination of the issues, but then said, "By the way, we reject every recommendation except one." That is the handy little recommendation, in which we happened to say that the presentation of the Government's case was abysmal. Of course it was abysmal, but the Government find it handy to accept that recommendation because, in so doing, they can say, "Really, it was nothing to do with the weight of the evidence, it was merely the presentation." The long-term injury for the Government is to mistake the shadow for the substance.
It is true that the presentation of the Government's case was extremely poor, but even if it had been much better, I am utterly convinced that the evidence would still have been in favour of the plaintiffs. The Chairman of the Committee referred to 111 hours and 21 days, of which not less than 15 days were spent on the wind shield issue alone. After 15 days of examination and cross-examination the Select Committee concluded by a majority of five to one in favour of the addition of a wind shield on the bridge.
Why should there have been a five to one majority? Why should an hon. Member such as myself, with no remote connection with the subject and with no subjective interest in the outcome, who supports the need for the crossing, as do other hon. Members, who appreciates the need to relieve as soon as possible traffic conditions and inconvenience in the area, who is aware of the long delays that motorists suffer at present, and who is fully cognisant of the Government's claim that wind-shielding would entail extra delays and costs in the construction programme, decide that there should be a wind shield on the bridge? Right hon. and hon. Members must decide that matter for themselves.
Despite all the resources at their command, the best legal brains that money could buy — apparently, the plaintiffs were more up-market with their QC—and with the assistance of not only the reservoir of talent that


resides in the Civil Service but the backing of a major financial and industrial concern and the expertise of the private sector, the Government utterly failed to provide the Select Committee with a case.

Mr. Janman: Is the hon. Gentleman willing to comment on the fact that the QC employed by the petitioners was certainly on a high salary and the projected rate increase in the county of Essex this year is 17·8 per cent.?

Dr. Reid: I cannot comment on rates. I can certainly say that if the QC was on an extremely high salary, and considering the way in which the evidence was presented, he deserved every penny of it. If the matter was judged purely in terms of convincing a Committee, he should have been paid 10 times the salary that the Government paid their QC.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I appreciate that members of the Select Committee will have their say, but it may be helpful if we accept that the way in which the Government presented their case is on trial, not the Select Committee and not any counsel for either side.

Dr. Reid: I accept that. I was merely responding to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
We have already paid tribute to the Chairman of the Committee. He conducted himself in an impeccable manner throughout the deliberations. He is not only an impeccable Chairman but an extremely polite man. He said that the presentation of the Government's case lacked something. He said:
We felt there was a lack of readiness … by the Government … to make available necessary technical and financial information which would have greatly assisted the Committee".
That was the understatement of the year.
At times the Committee descended into Whitehall farce as the Government became enmeshed in an ever-thickening web of apparent obstruction, which any objective Member could only have concluded was intended to obfuscate the real issue of whether the evidence supported the case for wind-shielding. For example, the famous design plans have been referred to. It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that, when the Committee first referred to the issue, the Government's initial case was that the plaintiffs had no locus.
The Government presented their case, the Select Committee decided against them, and the plaintiffs presented their case. Remember that the Government's case was that there would be undue delays and cost, because any wind-shielding would require a fundamental redesign of the bridge. The problem was that the Government would not release the bridge designs to the plaintiffs or, indeed, to the Select Committee. Therefore, it became impossible to estimate whether the Government were telling the truth. If one does not have the designs, it is difficult how a wind shield will affect redesign. Faced with that, the Committee asked the Government for the reasons.
The first reason that we were given was commercial confidentiality. That rather perplexed the Committee, because, as far as we were aware, the bridge will be owned by the Government. If the bridge is owned by the Government, we presume that the designs are owned by the Government. So we overruled them on commercial

confidentiality. But during the arguments on commercial confidentiality, the Government told us explicitly that there was a danger that the designs might fall into the hands of our foreign competitors—especially, and not surprisingly, the West Germans. But despite the threats from the German bogeyman across the Channel, we overruled the Government on that point.
8 pm
The Government then told us that even if confidentiality did not apply, it would be impossible to produce the designs because they did not exist. They said that it would take four to five weeks to put them together. That raised the obvious question: if the designs did not exist, how could the Government tell us that a wind shield would require a fundamental redesigning of the bridge? A simple question, one might think. Again, we overruled the Government and asked for the designs to be produced at short notice. We were then told that they could not be produced at short notice because the Government had to refer to the designer, the mysterious Dr. Homburg who—surprise, surprise—is a West German. Remember the people against whom we had to protect the designs' confidentiality? It appears that the designers were a team of West Germans.
Faced with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might have excused the objective member of the Select Committee for thinking that something was going on. That example sums up all the obstructive tactics that were used. In retrospect, it is easy to see why the Government were so reluctant to produce the evidence. The weight of the testimony and the evidence completely undermined the Government's case.
It is astounding that one of the most telling contributions against the Government's case and in favour of wind-shielding came from Dr. Cook, a Government employee and one of their foremost experts in wind—outside the Chamber, at least—who had not even been consulted on the matter. No one had thought to lift the telephone and say to the Government's top export—
[Interruption.] I will not reflect on his future. He may be an export at some stage. No one thought to telephone the top expert in wind and say to him, "We are building this great construction from Dartford to Thurrock. It is a fair old height and a massive size. Do you think we may have problems with wind?" We had the irony of the plaintiffs bringing their case against the Government and producing as one of their most telling witnesses an expert employed by the Government.
The essence of Dr. Cook's testimony was that, contrary to the Government's claim, the site of the Dartford-Thurrock crossing was wind-prone. The hon. Member for Thurrock asked earlier about the evidence in relation to a similar bridge nearby, but the existing basis of calculation of wind, which took into account general wind patterns, was not detailed enough to allow for localised conditions. That could mean that the Dartford-Thurrock crossing would be much more exposed to dangerous winds than a similar bridge, perhaps in the same general geographical area but not in the precise locality. That information could have been obtained by a simple telephone call.
I do not accept the limited wind-shielding that the Minister mentioned. It is a coincidence that out of the blue limited wind-shielding was added to the plans for the bridge within three days of the start of the Select Committee's deliberations. A discussion that had been


continuing for some months, with the plaintiffs asking for wind-shielding for more than a year previously, suddenly and miraculously came to a conclusion within 72 hours of the Committee's starting to ask questions about wind-shielding. It was a pre-emptive strike.
Nor can I accept that the wind shield would be a superfluous extra. As the Minister said, it is being actively considered for the second Severn crossing. I cannot accept that the Government—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Limited wind-shielding is being considered for the existing Severn crossing. Wind-shielding is being considered for the second crossing. It might be helpful to establish that.

Dr. Reid: I thought that that was what I said.
I cannot accept the Government's report, which simply goes through every issue that the petitioners have mentioned and replies to them. It is almost as though the members of the Committee were sitting in a time warp for 21 days. If all that will happen is that the petitioners' questions will be answered in the House, ignoring completely the decisions of the Select Committee, it might as well not have sat. The Government employed all the arguments, bar one, in testimony before the Committee. They acted as defence counsel during the trial, but when the jury found against them, they sacked the jury and said, "We do not like the decision. We will not only be defence counsel, but we shall set ourselves up as jury, judge and final court of appeal."
That not only undermines the Government's case on this crossing but seriously undermines the entire system of Select Committees. Of course, as the Minister will say, the Government are not obliged to accept the decisions of Select Committees. But they are obliged to give more weight to the Select Committee's deliberations than they appear from their response to have done.
The Minister said that the issue is one of traffic management. But that is the point of contention. The Government cannot solve a problem merely by reiterating the assertion on which they based their principal argument. The Committee, having heard the evidence, decided that it was not merely a question of traffic management. The issue before the House is whether high winds will cause the closure of the bridge or the restriction of lanes so frequently as to undermine the reason for constructing the crossing.

Mr. Janman: indicated assent.

Dr. Reid: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. I do not know where he got the estimate of 24 hours. It may horrify him to know that the average estimate of the plaintiffs, which was lower than Dr. Cook's estimate, was 550 hours a year of possible lane restrictions and closures. If the objective is to alleviate traffic problems between Dartford and Thurrock, the hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether, in the eagerness to construct the crossing, the company will not be constructing a white elephant.
I do not accept the argument on costs. The Minister said—he had no evidence to back his assertion, because I asked him, as I asked the Dartford River Crossing Company—that it would be impossible to encompass within the existing toll regime the additional cost of about £15 million to £30 million. He contended that, in the early years, the income would be insufficient, given the extra that would be necessary to pay the interest.
I make two comments on that assertion. First, the Dartford River Crossing Company was asked specifically by me and others to provide an estimate of its income for the early years. If a company cannot provide an estimate of income, it cannot say that that income will be insufficient to meet extra costs. It could not provide such an estimate, and nor could the Minister tonight. He said that if one adds £18 million to an existing bill, it is bound to be more at the end of the day. We are all grateful for that intellectual insight. It is one which the Committee would accept.
Even adding the £18 million and its interest to the existing moneys that have to be collected in tolls—we discussed that evidence in Committee — there is still sufficient leeway without any vast increase within the 20-year toll regime to collect that additional money. On present estimates, without taking into account the wind-shielding, the cost could be recouped in 14, 15 or 16 years. With the additional money it would be a bit of a tight squeeze, but it could be recouped within the 20-year toll regime. In other words, the global sum could be recouped without any major changes in the term of the toll regime.
The question is simple. Is it worth delaying the project for 18 months and paying an extra £15 million to render efficient for the purposes for which it is created a bridge that may last for well over a century? We are not talking about 24 hours a year delay, but 550 or possibly 880 hours. I contend, and the Select Committee contends, that 18 months delay and £15 million are justified for a bridge that will last over a century.
The Minister said that the Government had reconsidered the matter since the Select Committee reported, but I have seen no evidence of that. Indeed, from his response it is clear that, far from having reconsidered the matter, the Government have stuck obstinately to the original decision at the time of the initial tender. I do not know whether it is collective loyalty to the Department and decisions that have already been taken; whether it is sheer embarrassment; whether they are utterly and sincerely convinced that we, as well as their experts and the weight of evidence, are wrong; whether it is from friendship or loyalty to Trafalgar House; or whether it is because the contract has already been awarded.
Parliament, in the shape of the Select Committee, has served the plaintiffs, the public and future users of the Dartford-Thurrock crossing well. Unfortunately, the Government have served them ill. I am sure that the Minister has a marvellous future before him and I agree with one of his statements. He said that he would carry the can. He will indeed. I hope for his sake that we are wrong, because if we are correct—and I believe that we are—it will not be a can that he will carry during his career but a large albatross around his neck.

Mr. Dicks: First, I declare an interest. In 1985 I had an interest in Taylor Woodrow. When I served on the Select Committee I was not aware that Taylor Woodrow had made a bid for the original Dartford crossing, but my interest is registered in the section that deals with Members' interests, and has been since 1985. I was appointed to the Committee by the Committee of Selection, which must have been aware of that background.
I was the only member of the Committee who at the outset felt that the Government's case was correct and that the petitioners had no locus. I felt that we should not listen


to the case put by Kent and Essex county councils. How wrong I was. I am pleased to say that, and that my colleagues who decided that we should hear their case were right.
All of us, without exception, want to see this bridge in place, and we were all anxious to deal with the matter as quickly as possible. Had there been an obvious way to do so, we would have taken it, so before anybody says that we set out on this long voyage deliberately to have fun and games at the Government's expense, let me assure them that the opposite was the case. We had hoped to deal with the matter in a few days, but it took 21 days and almost 112 hours.
If one were malicious, one would say that the Government's presentation contains lies, and damned lies, but that would be most unfair. Yet, having noted the lack of details in the presentation, I would not be keen to have the Department of Transport, Mott, Hay and Anderson and Trafalgar House build a bridge with my grandson's Lego.
I have listened to try to find out where the truth lies, but I am left with a great deal of scepticism and anxiety, although it is private money. We are all aware of what is going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) described well how we had asked for information, but it was not forthcoming, for the various reasons that he set out, until we pressed for it. That was just one of about half a dozen instances that have given rise to my scepticism. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) quite properly took a different view, but the longer the Committee sat, the more sceptical most of us became. We were shown evidence and given views which were subsequently changed. We were not absolutely sure what was happening.
8.15 pm
I was concerned that we did not have access to Herr Helmut Homburg—that is a joke in itself. In his profile it said that the laws in Germany during the 1930s were changed to enable him to start his rising career as a bridge builder. We were not able to invite to the Select Committee the man who knew all the technical details and has special information that the Select Committee should have; nor could we question him and find out his thinking. Only by exerting pressure did we manage to persuade the Department to send a telex to Germany asking him what he thought about wind shields. His four or five line reply was that he did not want them "on my bridge". We thought that it was the Government's bridge.
I am a little uneasy about talking about the quality of the people working for the Government, Mott, Hay and Anderson, and Trafalgar House. The project manager, who is a charming gentleman, sat for many hours giving us the benefit of his wisdom. My colleagues discovered his background: he has limited experience, primarily from highway maintenance, he has never built a bridge, and he has no experience of the impact of wind on a bridge. He said that from walking around Dartford and perhaps crossing the Severn bridge he felt in his bones that the position was not too bad. He had a feeling inside him. We are talking a £82 million project. We asked him why he had not approached Dr. Cook, a Government employee with

great expertise, for help at the beginning. He had never thought about it. Dr. Cook works in a Department and is paid by the Government.

Mr. Janman: Does my hon. Friend think that that may have something to do with the fact that there is no major estuarial crossing in the world with full wind-shielding?

Mr. Dicks: With great respect to my hon. Friend, not at all. If one is to build a bridge, one should receive the best and most comprehensive advice possible. Essex and Kent county councils brought a witness who was a wind expert—not someone they found, but a man in a Government office. Yet central Government did not bother to ask one of their employees whose salary they pay. Nothing could be more stupid and unthinking.
The project manager—nice chap that he is, indeed a charming man—was not qualified. He did not have the expertise, background or specialisation to handle this project. One wonders how on earth he got the job.
I shall not stop there. I come now to the representatives of the agents. Although the contracts were up for tender for the job, no one was up for tender to be the agents. Why did Mott, Hay and Anderson get the job? The company did another job for the Department of Transport some time ago, so perhaps the Department thought that it was good and would have it back again. There was no competition, and it seemed to me—I am not an expert—that the Department had had a good job done by the company in the past and decided that it would bring it along and use it because it seemed pretty good.
To judge from what we heard from the representative, his evidence was flawed, to say the least. He was unfamiliar with wind-shield techniques and could not distinguish one type from another. He turned to Dr. Cook for advice, but did not appear to like it or bother to follow it up. His attitude to wind expertise, about which he knew nothing, was cavalier and throwaway. He described it as nothing more than weather forecasting. If a leading member of the Government's agents plays down the importance of wind on a bridge, be it the Severn bridge or the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, in such a cavalier manner, it makes one wonder how they came to be the Government's agents and how that man came to be in charge of the presentation.
In order to be fair to the three parties concerned, let us turn to Trafalgar House. It decided to bring along an accountant. He told us about his qualifications as a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, so we had hoped for some expertise from him. We asked if he had brought any figures along and he replied that he had not. We asked him how, if there was a delay, he would raise the money. He answered that he did not know how long that would take—possibly six months. We thought he was an accountant, but it turned out that he was not really one. He sounded like a Back-Bench Conservative Member doing what he was told when he was told to do it.
We put in our report and the Government examined it. Chapter 17 of the response says:
The Government, as promoters of the Bill, assisted by the concessionnaires, presented the case in the way they thought most helpful to the Committee.
Lies, damned lies and statements in the Minister's reply. There is no other way of putting it. If that was what the Government thought was the most helpful way, God help us if they wanted to be obstructive.
This reflected the obligation the Government felt to safeguard information which the concessionnaires considered would be of commercial value to a competitor.


The only information that the Government wanted to safeguard in their presentation to us was the information that would help us come to a full and proper conclusion in our deliberations. I do not hesitate to say that, and I shall not backtrack on it.
We heard from the Minister in the report, and we heard it again today, that further investigations have led the Government to believe that the Committee was wrong. We sat for 111 hours—21 days. The Standing Committee—God bless the Members and their cotton socks—sat for two hours—

Mr. Den Dover: Less than one.

Mr. Dicks: In that case, I do not bless their cotton socks.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is perhaps worth while telling the hon. Gentleman that he will strengthen his case if he realises that one of the reasons why the Standing Committee sat for less than an hour was that we did not have the Government's replies to the important points raised in the Select Committee, so there was no point in delaying the Committee at that stage.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We also did not have my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Dicks: It was a clever move on the part of the Government to keep everyone in the dark until the Standing Committee had risen, and then to deliver their response. The Department of Transport, as we discovered during our deliberations, over-estimated the toll income on bridges in the north—it got that wrong—and underestimated traffic on the M25—it got that wrong, too. But it was clever enough to ensure that the information needed by hon. Members to make our case conveniently arrived after the Standing Committee has risen.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport on 19 December asking for a full inquiry into how the contract was awarded and how it had progressed ever since. Something about it smelt wrong. I have received an acknowledgment, but yet again there was no answer to the points that I raised, except that the Minister indirectly replied to the Select Committee that the Government had to be careful about these issues because of commercial confidentiality. With great respect to my hon. Friend—I have a high regard for his ability and for what he says and does — that is absolute bunkum. There is nothing to prevent the Government answering the questions that we raised about the way the matter has been handled. It is wrong to use confidentially in this way. The Minister, I, my hon. Friends and, I am sure, the people in the Department of Transport, know that.
The Select Committee sat through all those hours and was painstaking about its questions. We argued among ourselves and delayed each other by asking so many questions. The Chairman was kind and patient, although once or twice he told some of us off. How can the Government listen to what we say and then, in a few days, reject virtually everything that criticised them, except for one bit, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out? There is something wrong with the way in which the whole thing has been handled. To say in the report, as the Government do, that they hope that an inquiry into the points raised will ensure that the presentation is better next time is not good enough.
I want to know why the goal posts were moved half way through the tendering process. I want to know how Mott. Hay and Anderson obtained the agent's post. Why is the project manager someone who should not be doing the job? Why did the man from Mott, Hay and Anderson know nothing about wind problems on the bridge? Why did the accountant not bring facts and figures with him? If that is the quality of person that the Government use in the Department of Transport, is it any wonder that they underestimate traffic on the M25 and overestimate tolls in the north of England? There is something wrong in the state of Denmark.
I beg the Minister not only to learn lessons for the future, but to tell us what has been going on, why and who has been doing it. Where is the Government's latest information coming from, and who gives it to them? If it is coming from the same incompetent crew that has been advising the Government thus far, they can forget the advice as worthless.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am sorry that my voice is hoarse tonight; it is in poor form because it was in too good form on Saturday at Cardiff Arms park.
I want to raise certain points that have not so far been covered. When my hon. Friends and I were first asked to serve on the Select Committee, we were all rather green, having been elected only in 1987. We were unfamiliar with some of the more arcane aspects of Commons procedure, so when the Whips approached us and told us that it was a great honour to serve on a Select Committee we rushed back to tell our hon. Friends of the new intake that we have been asked to serve on a Select Committee scrutinising private business. They asked what we had done wrong. I am still trying to find out, but it was a long job and we sat patiently. So green were we that we did not realise that the Government are allowed to score goals after the Select Committee has finished. I am glad that did not happen last Saturday. We scored a drop goal in injury time, but not after the whole match was over, which is essentially what the Government have done.
We can all share some sense of grievance at the fact that the Government have pretended that the Select Committee never met. They have said that they will accept the point about presentation and the fact that they did not put their case well. However, that merely strengthens their resolve to ram their original conclusions down the throats of hon. Members. They claim that all that was wrong was that they made a few mix-ups and did not get their act together in time to have everything ready for the Committee. Perhaps they rushed things a little and did not put the best face on what was really a strong case. All that does not please those of us who served on the Select Committee. The health of the Select Committee procedure for private or hybrid business in which there is a strong Government interest must depend on the Government showing some respect for the conclusions reached by Select Committees. They have not done so on this occasion. They have accepted the bit that does not involve any change in making up their mind and reaching conclusions. They have said that they are sticking to their guns even though they were overturned in the Committee by a majority of five to one and took a fairly severe pasting in the Committee's final conclusions. We have to ask ourselves why that happened. It is not just a matter of presentation, because something fundamental was giving rise to disquiet the whole way through.
8.30 pm
We are not discussing the principle of privatization—and the Opposition do not wish to raise that issue at this stage—and we are not considering privatisation of a key part of Britain's motorway infrastructure; we are debating whether the use of a design, build and finance contract for a key part of the M25 will give rise to any kind of substandard operation compared with what would have occurred if the Government had heeded to the Select Committee's conclusions.
The Select Committee met and considered the evidence in extenso. We were laymen, except for one member of the Committee who was an engineer, and we found in favour of the petitioners on some fairly fundamental points in relation to the bridge design. We expect some notice to be taken of that and will be most unhappy if it is not. We also expect some notice to be taken of the way in which we went about our work. We put our best efforts into it. We do not expect it to be dismissed as if it did not happen. That is extremely worrying for everyone involved in the work of the House of Commons as a whole.
This is a matter of concern not just for the seven of us on the Committee, who feel fairly aggrieved because the work that we put in may not have been noted in the way that one would expect, but for every hon. Member who will have to consider how the House is supposed to deal with the hybrid Bill procedure which combines Government and private interests. Are we supposed to pretend that the Committee goes through a charade of sitting for 122 hours because its Members have nothing better to do? Is it intended to be a real part of the examination of evidence which allows the Committee to draw conclusions?
It is most unfortunate, when private companies and the Government combine on docks, harbours, roads and bridges and use the hydrid Bill procedure more and more, that the Goverment do not recognise that the essential countervailing part of that is that they must take notice of the conclusions reached by Select Committees, even when those conclusions run counter to the case made by the Government. There must be times when the Government are willing to accept the principle that, even though a Select Committee has found against them and it will cost them time, money and renegotiation, Select Committees are there to do a job.
The Committee considered this case the first time that the Government wanted to use a design, build and finance procedure. We heard evidence that it would take additional time and money, but the Government said that they were unwilling to accept that conclusion. They said that the only conclusion they would accept was the one that involved the Government giving themselves a small caning on the backside for not putting the facts and figures together very well and for second-rate presentation. That is not good enough and will bring the Select Committee procedure on hybrid Bills into disrepute.
As I have said, it is an attack not only on the seven members of the Committee but on the whole Select Committee procedure for dealing with hybrid Bills. We all have an interest in seeing that that procedure is properly protected and is not used simply as a doormat by the Government. We must all make a stand to see that Select Committees are used properly and treated with respect, even when they draw conclusions that are inconvenient for

the Government and for their concessionaires. The Government cannot ride roughshod over Select Committees.
I should like to make a few points on finance and wind-shielding. These matters are important. When I started to serve on the Committee I took the view, based on gut feeling similar to that felt by some of the professional engineers involved in the design of the bridge, that near the Severn bridge on the west coast where I come from is a very windy area. The east coast is not as windy. Therefore, the many hours during which one would expect to see traffic restricted or diverted from the Severn bridge would not occur on the east coast because the winds in London are not like those in south Wales. I took a macho view.
The Minister has said that the Severn bridge has been closed only three times in the past 21 years. He did not say that the closures were all in the last two years. We have a Select Committee but we do not want select evidence from the Minister. The evidence must be treated in more than one way, and not just in the way favourable to the Government's case. We have to look at it objectively, because, when the bridge is constructed, it will be in place for a long time.
The key evidence against the Government was presented by their own employee. He was their top expert not just on winds, but on their effects on structures, which is the key factor in Dr. Cook's expertise, which was never challenged by anybody on the promoters' — the Government's—side. It was to the effect that, because the Dartford crossing would be in a particular alignment across the Thames and high above the river, the wind impact on vehicles crossing it in the one-way mode, which would be the norm, would be virtually as great—well within the margin of error — as the wind impact on traffic on the Severn bridge. I am more familiar with that bridge as I use it once or twice a month. Our experience as laymen that the west coast is windier than the east coast is not necessarily relevant according to the Government's top wind expert, who was called by the petitioners and not by the promoters. That evidence was never challenged.
We come back to the fundamental point, that, if the Government want to make a success and build confidence in this design, build and finance form of privatisation that they are setting out to use for the motorway system, they have to show that they are not cutting corners in order to make it a financial success for the promoters but of doubtful benefit to road users.
Let us deal with road users. I speak frankly as someone from the Celtic fringe who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has no direct traffic constituency connection to the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. We simply have the ability to consider how important this bridge is relative to the roads and bridges in our areas.
It takes a bit of swallowing of pride to admit to the volume of traffic that will use this road, even though it is not technically classified as a motorway, so that motor bikes, learner drivers, and so on, will be able to use it. The evidence given to us shows that in terms of traffic volume it is about twice as important as the Severn bridge. It will carry a colossal volume of traffic. About 40 or 50 per cent. of traffic will be local, from Essex and Kent, and this is probably the most important short length of motorway anywhere in Britain.
When the Channel tunnel is opened in 1992–93 and when we have full and free trade under the single internal


market regulations—assuming that they come about in 1992 — there will be a colossal volume of strategically important traffic travelling from France, Spain and Germany, the Benelux countries, not just to Kent or Essex, but to the midlands and to the north. That traffic will cross that length of motorway over the Thames. Therefore, it is perhaps the single most important two or three miles in the British motorway system. It is vital that it should be right and that there should be no unnecessary restrictions.
In many ways it will be the road transport jugular vein of Britain. For that reason, if there are ways of making sure that the traffic flows smoothly, we must take them, even if that costs the concessionaires a little extra money or results in a delay in their getting their money back of from 14 to 20 years or conceivably a loss of risk capital. They are in the risk business and that is the risk that they have to take. I do not wish that on the concessionaires, but that is the type of business that they are in. They are not operating on a cost-plus basis. They entered into it on a partly risk-bearing basis and they knew that before the Select Committee stage.
It is totally wrong for us to say that they may bear some risks, but we must eliminate those risks if they involve additional costs that they do not like. The Government cannot say that if the concessionaires do not like it, they will put it right, but if the Select Committee does not like it, they will ignore it. That is the wrong attitude in terms of the public interest in traffic flow and the importance of the M25 Thames crossing to the road system of Britain starting in 1993.
The evidence from the Severn bridge is clear, but there will be problems on the M25 Thames crossing, with the weight of lorry traffic which is particularly susceptible to high winds and which will carry key items of export freight from Scotland, the north and the midlands to the continent. It is vital that the bridge is right. It should not be a skimped, second-rate, cut-price bridge in order to ensure that the design, build and finance contract gets off to a good start in the view of the concessionaires and not in the view of the users of the bridge.

Mr. Dover: I am the only hon. Member who was on the Select Committee and the Standing Committee. I am also a civil engineer, without any financial interest in a building or civil engineering firm, although until the end of 1986 I was Wimpey's parliamentary consultant in the House.
In his opening speech and in response to the Select Committee, the Minister spoke about the so-called independent report from a Danish engineer. I have that report, and I do not consider that it is independent. The Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company Ltd. together with COWI Consult, a Danish engineering firm, made a bid for the third Bosphorus bridge in Turkey. I compliment Trafalgar House on its massive export orders around the world and on its superb first Bosphorus bridge. I regret that it did not build the second one, and I hope that it will land the contract for the third.
Those firms — Cleveland Bridge, part of Trafalgar House and the Dartford River Crossing Company—are in league with the Danish firm in putting in a very large tender for the third Bosphorus crossing. Dartford River Crossing Company briefed the engineers. The Government played no part in that, nor have their advisers, Maunsell and Kent and Essex county councils.
They have since been asked to do nothing further and they have not been consulted since the end of the Select Committee's consideration.
There were only two days of briefing with Dartford River Crossing personnel. One of the items that Dartford River Crossing asked the experts to judge was
verification of Dr. Homburg's reputation as a major bridge designer.
It seems strange, at that late stage for the bridge promoter to wonder about the credentials of its own so-called world expert in design. Later in the report there are rather dubious comments about whether the Severn crossing model can be likened to any Dartford model. I understand from Maunsell that the geometry was very similar, but the Danish engineer dismissed any similarity between the two projects.
The Select Committee spent some time considering whether Dartford or Severn had wind-shielding problems. We have heard from the Minister that full wind-shielding is under consideration for the second Severn bridge crossing. Indeed, much of the evidence to the Select Committee made great play of the fact that there was no bridge in the world with full wind-shielding.
We have heard that argument tonight. It is not a real argument, because the Government are rightly considering it for the second Severn bridge crossing. Indeed, the bridge referred to in the report, the Little Belt bridge in Denmark designed by the Danish engineer without wind-shielding, now has wind-shielding around its towers.
Civil engineering is a progressive art and one learns by one's mistakes or one's lack of understanding and takes suitable measures. The report states that a plastic wind shield membrane would be unsuitable. If that is so, and if the expected life is 20 years or less, why has the Department of Transport agreed to have it on a bridge on the River Tees where there is to be 16,000 sq m of glass reinforced plastic fitted?
I applaud the Department's foresight in covering the structural members that are deteriorating, and making sure that no further deterioration takes place. The plastic fairing and membranes help enormously.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend asking us to compare weather-shielding with wind-shielding?

Mr. Dover: I will be dealing with wind-shielding in a few moments. Perhaps weather-shielding was what the Minister had in mind at the Tees. I shall explain why I am talking about wind-shielding and the structural significance of the member itself.
The report made great play of the fact that plastic is not really a suitable member. That is wrong because it cart have, and will have on the Tees, a life of 30 years, which is the maximum period that an agreement certificate requires of any member in maximum exposure conditions.
The report goes on to say that the plastic material will in some way have to integrate with the steel of the bridge and that the membrane could be in aluminium or stainless steel and has to follow all the movement of the bridge. That is not true. I have checked with Maunsell, which has a different opinion from Mott, Hay and Anderson. It has given its opinion of the report, which is generally available. It says that the paragraph referring to plastic materials and movement, or the joint structural behaviour of that with the steel of the bridge is
wholly and totally a wrong assessment.


The Select Committee heard a lot of evidence about the time delay.

Mr. Bottomley: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but it is rather important. Was he talking about the membrane or was he referring to the plastic members of the bridge as load carrying or as covering for weather protection for existing members of the bridge?

Mr. Dover: We are not talking about weather protection as on the Tees bridge. We are talking about wind-shielding, with the fairing membrane making sure that the wind does not impose too much wind load on the bridge but moves past it and that whatever wind pressure is put on the bridge is taken on the main structure which is able to resist it in a more effective way than if the fairing membrane was not there.

Mr. Bottomley: Then the Tees example is not an effective comparison.

Mr. Dover: I accept that, if the Minister is saying that it is purely weather protection.

Mr. Bottomley: It would be helpful to know what my hon. Friend is asserting, so that I can respond to him.

Mr. Dover: I mentioned the Tees bridge originally because there are assertions that the life of a plastic membrane, as there will be at Tees, is 20 years or less. The Minister will find that it will be 30 years or more at Tees and the Department of Transport would not have allowed weather-shielding to be a plastic membrane if they thought otherwise.
The Danish expert was told by Dartford River Crossing that the delay would be about 21 months. He immediately made the point in his report that a saving of five months could be made, bringing that delay down to some 16 months. I was reluctant and a little sad to hear tonight that the Government immediately put that up to 18 to 21 months, whereas Maunsell and their advisers Essex and Kent county councils reckoned on a delay of some six months.

Mr. Michael Fallon: How can my hon. Friend convince the House that either Kent or Essex can make a better assessment of the likely delay involved in the redesign of the bridge than the company that has the contract? The opinion of those who will have to redesign the bridge— the work will be done in Darlington—is that it will take 15 to 21 months. How can Essex county council have a superior view?

Mr. Dover: If my hon. Friend studied the Select Committee proceedings, he would see that time was spent on analysing in great detail bar charts, some showing critical path networks through those programmes and Maunsell, Kent and Essex put their points of view, and the promoters of the bridge put their points of view. It was clear to the members of the Committee that there were time savings, and that speedier routes could be followed. The Danish expert said immediately that a saving of five months could be made, but the Government have said that they will forget that, and that they reckon that the delay will be 18 to 21 months. It is possible to redesign the bridge in terms of an overall trapezoidal box, as the report suggests, but the report is not truly independent. It would

be possible to redesign it with minimum changes, perhaps adding one or two extra longitudinal members, and that was accepted in the Select Committee.
In the Government's response, and tonight, we have heard about an extra cost of £15 million to £18 million. It is odd that the Danish engineer was not asked to quantify the extra cost associated with the addition of wind-shielding. Tonight, for the first time, we have heard a cost-benefit analysis from the Government. We have had one from Maunsell saying that the cost-benefit is £20 million to £30 million, whereas the range of costs is £5 million to £15 million or £18 million. The users of the crossing will provide £16 million of net profit each year. If there is an override cost of £16 million or £18 million, that will be swallowed up by one years' extra toll income. There is a buffer period of five years' tolls at the end of the envisaged construction period for the facility.
The Select Committee heard that the Government's man in charge — the project director — used his sixth sense to judge that wind-shielding was not needed. We have heard that full wind-shielding is under consideration for the second Severn bridge, and I welcome that. We have read in the report from the Danish engineer that there is limited wind-shielding, as the Government intend, around the towers, and that will certainly stop the dramatic effect that drivers will feel as they pass those towers.
However, I wish the House to concentrate on the four lanes of traffic heading south at about 50 mph and slowing down towards the toll on the southern side of the bridge. Until they reach the crest, they will have been protected from the prevailing south-west wind, but when they hit the crest, they will hit that wind full on, because they will be dropping from a rising gradient to a falling gradient. The design gradients on the bridge are the maximum permitted for a 50 mph speed range.
In other words, there is a dramatic change and, along with that, a dramatic wind, but the Government are not having any wind-shielding at that point. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he will gladly carry the can, but 1 hope that he will think more carefully about the issue. It is a matter of the wind direction and the direction of the traffic. My hon. Friend mentioned the Orwell bridge, but there is already a solid barrier there which is some 1·2 m high and made of concrete. No wonder there has been no closure of that bridge through wind.
I say this with great regret, but I could not possibly support the amendment. The Select Committee thought carefully, and heard the evidence, but the Government have not gone out for independent advice to see whether one set of experts or the other is correct. All we have is the promoter seeking a further source of advice from a group with which he is already in league. I wish them all success in their third Bosphorus crossing tender.
I shall end by quoting from an article by the county engineers of Essex and Kent, areas in which half the drivers using the crossing will originate or have their destinations, so the views of these people are a vital consideration. They say:
The public at large must have complete confidence in this first privately financed design and build estuarial crossing … Traffic difficulties at Dartford in future due to wind conditions would neither be forgotten nor forgiven by the public we all serve.
I feel that the Government are making a mistake by turning down the recommendations of the Select Committee. Wind-shielding should be added to the bridge.

Mr. Janman: I welcome the Bill's quick return to the House and for the same reason as I welcomed its Second Reading. I also welcome the amendment deleting the unproven requirement for the wind-shielding. Although I withdrew it, I tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I support the Government, and not as a Government Back-Bench poodle, as was intimated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Dicks: I said that it sometimes seemed that way, although I could have been mistaken. I was not referring to the Bill that we are discussing, so my hon. Friend should put his quotation in context.

Mr. Janman: I stand as a Member whose constituency is immediately adjacent to the crossing and as somebody who is therefore extremely concerned whether the design of the bridge has been got right. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, the number of drivers crossing the bridge daily who will emanate from my constituency will outnumber by a large factor the number of people crossing the bridge who will emanate from Hayes and Harlington. Therefore, I have a great interest in making sure that the Government get the design right. The team working on this project from DRCC and the Trafalgar House group was experienced and expert. The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) about the worldwide experience of Trafalgar House in designing bridges shows that it is unlikely that a company of such prestige and professionalism would come to a conclusion that is faulty in the way that my hon. Friend suggested.
The second Severn crossing is only just being considered and no decision about wind-shielding on that crossing has yet been reached. It may be decided that it is not required even in that particular location, which is much more susceptible to wind than the Thames between Dartford and Thurrock. Until that decision is made, it is safe to say that there is no major estuarial crossing in the world with full wind-shielding. The only instance of full wind-shielding in Europe can be seen on the Europa bridge across the Still valley in Austria. That bridge is sited at an elevation of 2,500 ft and that is quite a different location from the Thames between the Essex and Kent plains in my constituency.
The petitioners have based much of their case for extra wind-shielding on experience with the Severn bridge. Some of the Severn bridge's problems are caused by wind, but many are caused by its design. It is far more susceptible to a variety of problems, some caused by wind, than almost any other bridge in the United Kingdom. Why did the petitioners not consider the Humber bridge, the Forth bridge or any other major bridge in the United Kingdom? Obviously, it was not in their interests to do so. I believe that Maunsell, which advised Essex and Kent county councils, has a patent on full wind-shielding. I will take that back if I am wrong. Of course, Maunsell therefore has an interest to ensure that the bridge has full wind-shielding.

Mr. Morgan: I want to explain that Maunsell has also been chosen by the Department of Transport to be the consultant engineers for the second Severn crossing.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Hon. Members on both sides of the House should realise that the geometry of Dartford differs from the proposed second Severn crossing and one

cannot use one of those crossings as a surrogate for the other. It is also worth noting that, while the Department responsibly considers wind-shielding on the second Severn crossing, it would be ludicrous if it did not, for any good reason, aim to do the same for the Dartford crossing. The Department should be allowed some credit for being responsible for commissioning the work on the second Severn crossing.

9 pm

Mr. Janman: The point that I am trying to make is that the firm of consulting engineers chosen by Essex and Kent has a vested interest in ensuring that full wind-shielding is installed on the bridge because it has a patent on a full wind-shielding design.
Let us consider the comparison that was made between the Dartford-Thurrock crossing and the Severn bridge. It has already been said that the Severn bridge has been closed completely only three times in its 21-year life. I believe that the laboratory where Dr. Cook worked produced projections before the Severn bridge was built about the number of hours of lane closures due to wind —although I must state that I do not know whether Dr. Cook was involved in those projections. I believe that I am right to state—no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the projections were out by at least a factor of two. There have been fewer hours of lane closures on the Severn bridge than the laboratory to which hon. Members have referred projected.
The statistics show that there is an average of 168 hours per annum of lane closure on the existing Severn crossing. Some of the projections offered by the petitioners to the Select Committee on Transport estimated that the influence of wind at Dartford would be five times greater than actually occurs at the Severn bridge, when current British standards show that maximum gust wind speeds at Dartford are about 15 per cent. lower than on the Severn bridge. The petitioners used very low wind thresholds as the base for their predictions of wind effect at Dartford.
However, the number of hours when the wind exceeds specific thresholds was calculated by the Dartford River Crossing Company for both the Dartford and Severn bridges using Meteorological Office records corrected for bridge heights and locations. The records show that the "hours of wind"—that is, the number of hours when the wind would reach a gust speed that would cause lane closures—for Dartford are no more than 25 per cent. of the Severn bridge figures for the same threshold speeds.
Taking other special factors into account, such as the particular design of the bridge and the fact that the traffic flows only one way, everyone concerned with the project has concluded, quite rightly I believe, that the number of hours of lane closure on the Thurrock-Dartford crossing would be as few as 24 per annum. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will clarify whether the figure of 24 hours does or does not include the effect of localised wind-shielding and whether, if it does not, the figure of 24 hours could be reduced even further with the addition of such localised wind-shielding.

Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has made considerable play of the 24-hour figure about which, according to him, everyone involved in the project agrees. Given the discrepancy between 24 hours and 880 hours—the figure produced by the Government's top expert on the effect of wind on structures — will he name one expert who


supports the 24-hour figure who has the same background, expertise and reputation as Dr. Cook? There is an awful discrepancy between 24 hours and 880 hours. If we are to judge fairly on this, will he name one expert whose reputation is as formidable as Dr. Cook's to back up his 24-hour figure, if possible without reference to any of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It may be helpful to the House if I explain that we are not playing a game. We are considering a serious issue to which the Select Committee devoted nearly 21 days.

Mr. Morgan: Is that a point for the Government's side?

Mr. Bottomley: I hope that this is of assistance to the House. I open my mouth to make points not just for my side. It is fair to say that Dr. Cook presented data on wind speeds and occurrences. He did not get involved in the argument about whether wind shields were necessary.

Mr. Janman: It has also been accepted that at the east London river crossing, only eight miles up river and in similar territory, there will be 25.hours of lane closure per year. It strikes me that, there being only a difference of one hour between those two crossings, one could logically come to the conclusion that 24 hours of lane closure is correct. The Government, the Department of Transport, the consultants acting on behalf of the Government, the Dartford River Crossing Company and the Trafalgar House group, all of which have individuals whose judgment I respect and value, have come to the conclusion that there will be only 24 hours of lane closures per year at the new crossing as a result of the gust speeds that will operate in this geographic location and their effect on vehicles travelling across. It is interesting—

Mr. Robert Hughes: I should like to make one point to the hon. Gentleman. He has cast some doubt on the integrity of the firm of consultants that advised about wind-shielding on the ground that it is trying to sell its systems to Trafalgar House and therefore cannot be objective. The hon. Gentleman should have a care about casting doubt on people's reputations, especially as he appears to be quoting from a brief that he received from Thurrock borough council. It is the council that is making those allegations and it is opposed to the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to deal with the matter on its merits and not throw mud about.

Mr. Janman: With respect, I said that the company had a patent on the design. I did not at any time say that it was trying to sell it. I am not quoting from a brief provided by my local council, which I should remind the hon. Gentleman is a Labour-controlled local authority. If he is casting doubt on its integrity, perhaps the current political control has something to do with that.
It has been revealed in the debate that most of the wind-related incidents on the existing Severn bridge occur near the towers of the bridge. Therefore, it is important that there should be some form of wind-shielding at the towers. That is exactly what the localised wind-shielding will provide. In my view, it will cater adequately for any wind-shielding that is required.
We have to decide tonight whether it is worth the extra cost to the motorist and the extra delays. I do not think that it matters whether the delay is 15, 18 or 21 months;

we are talking about a long delay in a project that is required urgently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) pointed out, that sort of delay could jeopardise jobs in the north-east of England, which is where Opposition Members are always saying that we need more jobs.
For 24 hours of lane closure per year, of which, statistically, at least half will be at night when the real challenges of traffic control will not apply, are we prepared to have that long delay and jeopardise jobs in the north-east? Perhaps what has happened, to use a rugby analogy, is that the Select Committee has scored the first try, but I think that after reassessing the evidence, which the Government have done, we will see that the winning argument is that against wind-shielding, not the argument in favour.
I certainly welcome the Bill on Report and Third Reading and I welcome and support the amendment. My constituents are intimately involved in the bridge and are keen to see it built as soon as possible. They certainly do not want to drive across a bridge that is dangerous. They welcome the Government's reassessment and their conclusion.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I come as a non-member of the Select Committee to listen to the debate because it is important that we should keep an eye on these matters and not leave discussions to Committee Members.
I have heard the arguments and read some of the report, and I am alarmed to see that, in paragraph 6 of its report, the Select Committee stated:
Over the course of 15 days, we heard a substantial amount of evidence on the desirability or otherwise of adding windshielding to the bridge.
The Committee's conclusions were made on an entirely objective basis with no party political involvement. That objective assessment of the evidence was made after long and boring proceedings, with counsel for both sides appearing to be paid by the hour and making every hour as lucrative as possible—that is the general reputation of such Committees—yet the Committee's conclusions were case aside so lightly by the Government
I also read the Government report, and I hope that the Minister will answer my questions. In paragraph 6 of its report the Select Committee stated:
We acknowledge that a requirement to add windshielding to the design at this stage would cause some delay to and increase the cost of construction. We believe, however, that these disadvantages should be set against the significant reduction in the number of occasions when restrictions on vehicles using the bridge would have to be imposed owing to high winds. We concluded that the benefits to be gained from windshielding are sufficient to compensate for the delay and increased cost in building the bridge. We have agreed by a majority of five to one to amend the Bill accordingly.
That was a hefty majority of the Committee. The House will accept that the Committee was considering the matter objectively. People suspect that perhaps the Government have not been quite so objective. The Minister will be able to tell us whether, as a result of those published conclusions in the special report of the Select Committee, there have been any representations from Trafalgar House, any communications, meetings with civil servants or the Minister, exchanges of letters or protests from the concessionaires, who would not like to see the cost of bridge construction increased in that way.
Has there been any pressure, or has the Department taken an entirely objective position and decided that the


additional cost is simply not worth the candle of the reduced number of potential closures on the bridge because of high winds?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I remember one conversation with a senior member of the Dartford River Crossing Company. I suspect that there have been letters, and there have certainly been meetings, because we have put a substantial amount of pressure on DRCC to obtain the information on which we could make an objective judgment. I stand by the words in my opening speech.

Mr. Cryer: When a Minister tries to make an objective judgment on subjective information from people who are interested parties, it is a difficult process. I understand the Minister's problem, but, in Parliament, we have to consider the circumstances and decide whether they are satisfactory.
There are two sides to the matter. On the one hand, hon. Members who are not involved on a constituency basis and have no axe to grind have to go through a boring procedure because they are asked to do so and have to make the best of the circumstances. On the other hand, the Minister, cosseted by civil servants behind closed doors, receives evidence from people with a clear financial vested interest. The difficulties in making an objective decision are far greater for the Minister than for the Committee.
We set up these Committees to do a job in the public interest. The Committee may just as well not have sat, for all the value that the Government have placed on its deliberations. It is not just a case of the Labour Opposition saying that the Government are taking a ham-fisted approach, as there has been virulent criticism from a Conservative Member. This is an important matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said — he is a Rugby Union enthusiast, with some justification to judge from recent events—the House will have to consider the issue. With a Government who have a majority of 100, the House has to reassess its position in regard to an elected dictatorship. If we have Select Committees spending hours examining evidence that is then discarded, the House will have to consider whether it is worth while pursuing such procedure for legislation such as this.
The inability of the Government and the concessionaires to present adequate evidence was all concealed behind a cloak of commerial confidentiality. That cloak is used far too frequently. Departments can shield pretty well what they want. By and large, it is not Ministers who classify documents, "Commercial in Confidence". The documents arrive on their desks stamped by a civil servant. Until we are clear about the relationship between Trafalgar House and the Civil Service, we are not clear about the influences that produce category.
9.15 pm
I do not accept the argument in the Government's resonse that there was sufficient justification on grounds of commercial confidentiality to inhibit them from presenting a full and comprehensive answer to the detailed questions which the Committee properly asked. In paragraph 17, the Government say:
The Government, as promoters of the Bill, assisted by the concessionaires, presented the case in the way they thought most helpful to the Committee.

That patently was not the case — the Committee complained. The Government are to have an inquiry. They say:
The Secretary of State has already begun an enquiry into the way in which the case was handled and will ensure that this enquiry includes consideration of ways in which difficulties might be avoided on any future occasion.
That is the sort of platitudinous nonsense that Governments turn out to suit any occasion. We shall get a platitudinous report in which the Government say that a little more information could have been presented a little earlier. The Secretary of State will look at it and it will gather dust until the next point of disagreement.
The Government are too closed a society. Government Departments use the excuse of secrecy to do what they like. It is simply not good enough to have such a response to people who were elected here to do a job which they do not much like doing but which they do with reasonable spirit. In a spirit of inquiry, they produced a report for public consumption. They were fobbed off with childish answers. It does the Minister and the Department no good at all to produce a response of such poor calibre.
The case that the Select Committee made has not yet been answered. I look forward to the Minister's winding-up speech. He has received strong criticism from both sides of the House and from members of the Committee. There is a strong case for retaining the Committee's recommendation. I hope that there is a vote on the Government amendment. In view of the Minister's comments, I suspect that the Government have kept sufficient Members here to see the amendment through. The matter will not be decided in quite as objective a way as has been suggested. It is lamentable that the Government's case has been put forward on such an ordinary level. They have produced no answers of any substance.

Mr. James Couchman: We spent 21 days of our lives listening to evidence, much of it highly complex and technical. AI times, indeed, it became positively surrealistic to listen to long and worthy arguments about vortex-shedding, flutter and all sorts of other strange things of which I have never heard in my life. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr Chapman) was a delight as Chairman: indeed, it was his chairmanship that made some of the lengthier and more boring sections of the inquiry bearable.
It had its lighter moments, however. Mention has been made of the substantial fees paid to counsel on both sides. The House sat all through one Tuesday evening, and, when we assembled on Wednesday morning, we had to remind counsel that the day was still Tuesday, and that Tuesday's refresher would have to do for Wednesday as well. There were one or two unhappy faces on the other side of the table! However, it has to be said that those moments were brief and all too infrequent.
The sitting became a battle of wits between the rapier cross-examination of the petitioners' counsel, Mr. Conrad Dehn, and the somewhat more pedestrian efforts of the Government's counsel and between the articulate and highly credible evidence of the petitioners' principal witness, Mr. Churchman, arid some of the more halting contributions on behalf of the Government and the concessionaires.
Ultimately, it came down to whether we accepted the petitioners' contention that restrictions would have to be put on the bridge for, variously, 500 or 800 hours a year.
In their rebuttal of the Select Committee's evidence, the Government have produced in appendix A facts and figures which I wish to goodness we had had when the Committee sat. If I had been able to see that the Severn bridge had been closed only three times in its 20-year history, that the average for lane closures between 1984 and 1986 was only 168 hours a year and that restrictions on wind-susceptible vehicles were only 60 hours a year, it would have been easier to cut through the enormous verbiage to which we were subjected.
I am also taken with the Government's instance of the Mar Dyke, on the crossing approaches of the M25, just north of the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. There, we are told, the forecast suggests that gusts of 50 mph, the conventionally accepted threshold for consideration of the closure of a bridge to wind-susceptible vehicles, occur for just 11 hours a year. We are told that, using the same forecasting methods — the petitioners' own wind forecasting method, I believe, was used—the projection for Dartford bridge is some 37 hours a year. I use the name of Dartford bridge in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who has other ideas about its naming. If the Mar Dyke viaduct offers such projections to a bridge just south of it, we have listened to an awful lot of words based on information produced by one side and not rebutted by the other.
I regret that the Government have had to rely for their rebuttal largely on the evidence produced by Aksel Frandsen, the distinguished Danish engineer from COWI Consult. I regret most the fact that this rebuttal has been produced with new evidence after the Select Committee and the Standing Committee finished their proceedings, so this evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination by the Committee or by the counsel who represented the petitioners and the Government. I find Mr. Aksel Frandsen's evidence persuasive, but that is likely to happen, because I was the one—as opposed to the five — who did not find the petitioners' case to have been made.
I sat through many hours in Committee. I represent a Kent constituency and my natural feeling would have been to support the petition submitted by my county and Essex, but I did not find the case to have been made. I was especially concerned by the threat of delays that would result from redesign work and the possible rehybridisation of the Bill. That becomes a real prospect if one reads carefully the evidence of Mr. Frandsen and of the Government.
It is clear— I think that this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) —that the gradients of the bridge are the maximum that can be permitted in these circumstances. If those gradients were to be retained and the bridge had to be completely redesigned to a trapezoidal box system, as opposed to an orthotropic steel deck, the toll booths at the southern end would have to be moved. That would involve more land and other people whose interests might be hurt by the Bill. That would clearly involve rehybridisation and the reselection of the Select Committee. I hope to have a good alibi so that I am not recommissioned to sit on the Select Committee, because 21 days was long enough.
I am content that the Government seek by way of this amendment to take wind-shielding out of the Bill. I am less content with the inelegant way in which it has had to be

done. I am certain that, had the Government and the concessionaires presented a better case in Select Committee, we would not have come to the conclusions that we did. I think especially of Mr. Frandsen's evidence. Whether it is compromised by the fact that COWI Consult worked with Trafalgar House is by the by. That evidence would have been persuasive and we would not have found the petitioners' case to be made.
I shall support the Government. I dare say that other members of the Select Committee from both sides of the House will feel that, in the interests of consistency, they should vote against the amendment. We shall find out in the Lobbies who will prevail.

Mr. Fallon: I shall be brief, because the House wants to come to a decision. I begin by declaring an interest— not a financial interest, company involvement or an interest as a fan of any of the various sets of civil engineers mentioned during the debate, but a constituency interest. Much of the fabrication involved in the bridge will be carried out in Darlington. We look forward to some 350 man years of work in Darlington, involving some 20,000 tonnes of steel fabrication. That work will be done in Darlington and the steel will be produced either in the north-east or in Scotland. I should have liked to hear at least some recognition of the employment effects of the contract from hon. Members who have sought to impose the wind shield and the delay that is consequent upon it.
The rest of the country has an interest in the bridge. It is not simply a matter for Kent or Essex. Some areas of high unemployment will be involved in its construction. Regions north of Essex are looking forward to faster and more efficient links with the south and Europe.
I make that point because 1,000 men in Darlington are on short-time working. They are now facing a four-day week. The Select Committee has been making leisurely progress—it sat for three days a week as the lawyers sought to debate for hour after hour—and 1,000 of my constituents have been forced on to a four-day week while waiting for this project, which has been substantially delayed by the Select Committee's slow progress.
I want to be fair to the Select Committee, because I understand the problems involved. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that I served on a Select Committee in the last Parliament that sat for twice as long as this one—the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill. I understand the burden that is imposed on hon. Members.
Nevertheless, it is right to point out that today's debate illustrates perfectly the impossible task that the Select Committee had. It is not the function of a Select Committee to design a bridge; we do not ask a Select Committee to do that. Nor can we ask a Select Committee to redesign a bridge on the basis of petitions and evidence from civil engineers and construction experts.
I suspect that it was because of the over-generosity of my hon. Friend for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and the Committee in accepting the locus of the petitioners that it put itself in this impossible position. I think that that was a serious error of judgment.
The entire debate has been about an important issue of public policy — exactly how the bridge should be constructed, what the various delays involved are and how the traffic can be dealt with if the delays materialise. That point is not just a matter for the petitioners of Kent and Essex. It is a matter of public policy. It was wrong for the


Select Committee to take it on board. It should have been left to a Standing Committee to consider, along with the other issues of public policy that could have been brought before it.

Mr. Chapman: In fairness to the Select Committee, it should be said that in examining whether the petitioners had a locus we had to look at whether their interests would have been affected. Rightly or wrongly — perhaps my hon Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) thinks wrongly—we said that they did have an interest because of the consequences for their roads on both sides of the River Thames if the bridge was closed.

Mr. Fallon: I accept that point, and I have read the proceedings of the Committee. I notice that the Select Committee was divided and that it voted on whether a locus had been established. I believe that the Select Committee was wrong. Of course a council on either side of the river might have an interest in whether traffic would be redirected, but that interest is not necessarily any greater than that of Durham county council, Darlington borough council, the rest of our road network from which much of the traffic might originate or those district or county councils to which the traffic might be directed. The Select Committee confused a particular interest with a wider general public interest that Kent and Essex have, but which they share with other local authorities throughout the country.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that, if the Select Committee had not accepted the locus and had generated, albeit over a lengthy period, such an intense and interesting debate about wind-shielding, the Government would not have introduced partial wind-shielding? The Committee has done a service because apparently the bridge is now even better, although it is not entirely what the petitioners and some hon. Members wanted. Improvement has been effected because of the Select Committee's work. I tell the hon. Gentleman—I hope without being patronising—that that never would have arisen if the matter had been dealt with solely by a Standing Committee.

Mr. Fallon: I certainly accept that the Select Committee has done a service to the House in ensuring that the issue has been properly debated. Equally, the matter could have been before a Standing Committee. I am seeking to establish that the Select Committee put itself in an impossible position. It came to a divided conclusion.

Mr. Dicks: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fallon: No, I shall not give way.
The Committee was divided in its conclusion on whether shielding was necessary. It voted on the issue. It is inevitable that one side of the Committee will be satisfied and that the other will be dissatisfied about whatever steps the Government take to deal with the matter. It is unfair to the House and wrong to expect a Select Committee to deal with the matter in that way.
The way in which the Committee considered the matter has lengthened the amount of time involved. The project has been considerably delayed. I hope that it will not be delayed much longer. It is instructive to note that a bridge was first considered by the House in 1930, when the tunnel was first planned. That was 58 years ago.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This has been a curious debate, for at least one reason. The only voices that have been raised in aid of the Government, other than that of the Minister —I say this kindly to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) — have been those of hon. Members who have a vested interest in the project or in the Government. I shall pass over the hon. Gentleman's PPS-ships.

Mr. Couchman: I devoted 21 days of my life to listening to the evidence, and I found the petitioners' case wanting. I have been consistent in finding that case wanting tonight. I shall certainly support the Government on that basis, not because I am a junior member of the most junior rung of the Government.

Mr. Lloyd: I accept the hon. Gentleman's juniority. It is well-deserved. I do not wish to engage in a personalised debate.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) made it clear that he spoke for what he perceived to be the interests of his constituents, as indeed did the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
Those hon. Members who have come disinterested to the Chamber have spoken powerfully against the amendment and in favour of the status quo. It is rather curious and instructive to note the way in which, in his latter remarks, the hon. Member for Darlington managed to confuse the House and himself. He said that somehow it was heinous that the Select Committee should divide five to one, and that somehow that meant that there was a rift. The hon. Gentleman prefers the ministerial steamroller — the absolute certainty of the Minister telling him exactly how to behave — to the idea that we in a democratic society and in a democratic Parliament should have differences of opinion on matters that everyone concedes are of great complication. The Select Committee procedure allows it to examine in detail, over a considerable period, the arguments that were put forward, and to have a difference of opinion. Even within that difference of opinion, the way in which it voted on a cross-party basis was overwhelming.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, had it not been for the Select Committee, the concept of partial wind-shielding would not have arisen. The Minister indicated his assent to that earlier, and no doubt he will confirm it later. But the progress of the Bill through the House reflects no credit on the promoters or on the Department.
The Select Committee produced two volumes of detailed argument and evidence. I have not had the opportunity —hon. Members would not have expected it — to replicate all the deliberations of the Committee. The Minister has admitted that he has not had the direct experience of the members of the Select Committee. Like mine, his experience is second-hand. Yet the Government have produced a document which supposedly refutes the technical arguments that were made before the Select Committee.
The document contains information that was not made available to members of the Select Committee, and its production at this late stage is inadequate. It is not good enough that the Select Committee did not have information on wind speeds in other areas. It is not good enough that the Committee did not hear that evidence put to the test under cross-examination, as happened with all


the other evidence that it heard. It is not good enough that the Government had already made up their mind to oppose the Select Committee examining wind-shielding.
This evening, we have heard arguments about whether that examination was right or wrong. It is worth quoting from the minutes of evidence on page 853. On Thursday 15 December, the Chairman said:
The Government challenged the right of the Petitioners to be heard on the subjects of windshielding and the toll regime. Concerning the latter, the Government contended that the Petitioners had no locus standi on this issue and also that any alteration to the proposed regime would be contrary to the principle of the Bill. We decided that the County Councils did not have a locus standi on this issue, so the Petitioners were not allowed to produce evidence on it.
But the Committee accepted that the two county councils had an interest in wind-shielding, and the ensuing prolonged debate has been of great importance to the House. There was no debate on the issue on Second Reading, because the evidence was not available at the time. But once the petitioners started to make their case to the Select Committee, it became obvious that powerful arguments had to be considered — powerful arguments that the Government wanted to sweep under the table.
The Minister should respond to that point because the Government, through their representatives, opposed the idea that wind-shielding should be discussed. Had it not been discussed, we should not have achieved what everyone accepts is the improvement of partial wind-shielding. That is a black mark on the Government's record and handling of the matter.
In Standing Committee, the Opposition made it clear that there was little point in pursuing the argument because we had received no new evidence from the Government. They had already made it clear that they intended to table an amendment on Report. But we did not know on what information the Government would base the amendment. We now have that evidence and the opportunity of this narrow debate, but we could have debated the matter more fully in Standing Committee had the information been available.
The Government made some play of the amount of time that the Bill has taken, but no one can argue that the two or three weeks that have elapsed between the proceedings in Standing Committee and now will greatly affect the role of the bridge in the traffic management of the south-east and the nation generally.

Dr. Reid: In response to what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). does my hon. Friend accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I have male unemployment in our constituencies well in excess of that in Darlington? Is he aware that both of us have a steel interest and that, however remote, our subjective interest would be to push the Bill through as soon as possible? Do not those two facts make our case even stronger because, despite them, we feel that in the public interest there should be some delay and that wind-shielding should be added?

Mr. Lloyd: I accept my hon. Friend's point. Despite what I said earlier about the hon. Member for Gillingham, all members of the Select Committee began and ended with clean hands. We were all disinterested and the process was

conducted in the interests of general public and parliamentary scrutiny of an important Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, we want to see another crossing at this part of the Thames. It is important that it should be built.
But it is not right for Parliament to allow a crossing on any terms and conditions, or to accept whatever scheme is proposed by promoters in any circumstances simply because of delays of weeks or even months. There is an argument between the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and the Minister about the nature of the delays. Even if they are as long as 18 months, it is not right for us to accept a second-rate bridge or an unacceptable bridge simply because we all accept the ultimate importance of another crossing at this point.
It is remarkable to have a procedure involving hon. Members, only at the end of it to reject everything that they do. That is what the Government have done, and no one should have any illusions about it. The Government have not taken on board the evidence that came before us or our recommendations; they have rejected them completely. There has been a partial attempt through limited wind-shielding to allay public fears, and that at least is a partial triumph for the Select Committee, but clearly, from the recommendations, that is not what it wanted. Nor is it what the public needs. There are real doubts and anxieties about wind-shielding. The Government should not casually dismiss the Select Committee process.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber want this bridge. We are not divided along party political lines. Every hon. Member knows that the Government will have their payroll vote steamroller this Bill through, partly because the concept of design, build and finance projects is ideologically important to them. They want to make this first one a success. We are not here to debate that and I shall not detain the House, except to say that the Government's desire to make a success of the first of these new bridge-building projects is not an adequate reason to steamroller the procedures of the House and the work done by hon. Members on both sides where no party political division exists. The Chamber will become divided if the Government say that we must take evidence on trust and unexamined when the alternative evidence was examined thoroughly and carefully.
I cannot understand why the Minister should expect me to trust him as an individual. Ultimately, he is present as the arbiter of the experts that he marshals. He is here to convince the House that his expert's evidence has greater validity than that of the experts who paraded before the Select Committee. I do not say this unkindly, but I can have no greater confidence in his ability to represent his experts than I have in the five members of the Select Committee who listened with great attention hour after hour, day after day.
That is what divides the House. It is an issue of confidence in the procedure which has arrived at the decision to get rid of the full wind-shielding on the bridge, and whether it has adequately examined the facts. We say that it has not. The procedure that produced the report that recommended wind-shielding was as thorough as could take place under the parliamentary process. Because that procedure has been followed and the recommendation was overwhelmingly in favour of wind-shielding, I ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Mr. Peter Bottomley: The
majority recommendation by the parliamentary select committee on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill to introduce wind shielding raises important questions of a constitutional philosophical and technical nature. First, the constitutional issue.
A hybrid Bill procedure was adopted for the privately financed bridge because it offers a much shorter preconstruction period than the conventional and somewhat discredited public inquiry route, and gives a chance of opening the structure early in the 1990s.
But if the hybrid route is to he more than just a rubber stamp, then Parliament's scrutiny must be thorough and its views influential. It is no good the promoter bleating that the alterations required by the select committee add costs and delays, or that such changes are tantamount to breaking faith with the agreement or changing the rules part way through. Just as with the 19th century railway Bills, the promoter must convince Parliament of its case, and must run the risk of failing. Privately financed construction should operate that way or not at all.
The second question concerns the nature of the project. Any Government interested in the efficient movement of people and freight has to be concerned about the vulnerability of a particular link to bad weather, while a private promoter might simply be interested in the effect any closure would have on commercial viability. Their conclusions need not be the same. The Select Committee on the Dartford crossing is correct to scrutinise this issue in the public interest.
The third and crucial question is whether the recommendation is right. Were the bridge an isolated crossing with no other routes nearby (such as at Severn) the answer might well be yes. But with the tunnel alternatives so close, it is hard to see how the committee can justify the extra cost and delay. On these grounds, the Government may be justified in overruling the committee.
Both private finance and the hybrid Bill have much to offer in construction, but only where the promoter shoulders risk and where the Parliamentary procedure has teeth. If they are to succeed, promoters must become more forthcoming and persuasive than at the Dartford hearings, and select committees need to be more technically literate, perhaps by employing advisors, so that they can judge better conflicting technical advice.
Those words come from the New Civil Engineer editorial after the Committee had reported, and I believe that the House thinks that they are all right.
There is the issue that Parliament cannot allow the Government to take it for granted, especially when a Select Committee has served as long and hard as did this one. The editorial went on to say that the Select Committee's recommendation was not necessarily right. When I was watching the Select Committee from afar, it was interesting to note that the technical press showed no interest. The issue was considered for seven weeks, yet the New Civil Engineer did not report it each week, the Institution of Civil Engineers did not organise seminars in the middle of it, and the construction journals showed no interest in it, and that was a sign to me that the issue did not grip the whole of the consulting world as it obviously did the counsel for the petitioners and promoters and members of the Select Committee. Having read, day by day the transcript—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. MacLean.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I shall not dissent from most of what he said.
The interest in the Bill seems to be growing in the House. Hon. Members from Essex and Kent who have been present throughout the debate have shown a clear interest, as the traffic starts in those counties. One can understand the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). I am sure that he would have spoken had he not been a member of the Government.
I pay tribute to the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North accepted that wind-shielding would need to be redesigned. Although he would not claim to be an expert in bridge design or redesign, his conclusion would be accepted by most people. I know that the Select Committee spent much time considering that point, but with the extra evidence that the Government have made available, it would be common sense to accept that conclusion. Bridges across the Thames are not designed and redesigned in Committee. They need to be designed in such a way that the promoters and the concessionaires have confidence in them and can demonstrate that confidence to reasonable, objective people such as myself.
I have had to consider what is right. Although delay can matter, the key issues are whether the bridge will last and whether it will be safe. Clearly, it will last, and the Government consider that it will be safe. Obviously, different points of view have been expressed during the debate. There was a reference to cutting corners. We do not intend to cut corners. We want a bridge that will work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) who chaired the Select Committee, carefully pointed out the issues with which the Select Committee was concerned and explained the Select Committee's conclusions about the evidence that was put forward. His speech stands by itself and needs no comments from me. I emphasise that he dealt with the cost and the delay. He also spoke about the technical advisers to the Committee. Having read the way in which the case was put, I reckon that the best move would be for counsel's fees to decline daily, as the Select Committee proceeded, and for hon. Members' attendance allowances to increase daily.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) put their cases very well, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). I shall not summarise the arguments put forward in favour of the Government's conclusion, which I do not deny was the same as that with which they started. However, we have ended up with rather better evidence for our view. I hope that I have put it rather better, or at least more briefly than it was put during the Select Committee hearings.
I must say to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) that I did not hide the decision that the Government had taken in Standing Committee. The Government had not taken a decision in Standing Committee. Indeed, my opening speech led my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) to believe that the Government would accept full wind-shielding. It was only on my second attempt at explaining the Government's considerations that it became apparent that if the Government's further research confirmed that full wind-shielding was not necessary, the Government would come forward, in the open, on the Floor of the House, to ask the House to make a decision. It would have been wrong in Standing Committee, even if all the further work had been completed, to take out the amendment, or propose to take it out, when more than half the members of the Select Committee were not on the Committee. It is far better to do it openly if we decide to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley rehearsed some of the arguments about plastic covering that were put to the Select Committee. It is unnecessary for me to repeat those arguments. The conclusions reached by the


independent engineer, at least independent of the DRCC and the Government, had given some weight to the views on the cost and the delay, and annex A helps to deal with the inter-relationship between the hours of wind-exceedence and the effect on traffic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr.Dicks) made a robust speech. I am happy for him to pat me on the back, but some of the transfer of the approach suitable for a politician to a public official is wrong. I spend a lot of time with officials in the Department of Transport. They occasionally make mistakes, and I more frequently make mistakes, but together we serve the community well, and the same thing would apply if the Labour party were in government.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman would not be a Minister.

Mr. Bottomley: I am sorry to hear that. I thought that I would be a fixture, like a Speaker.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the Department had the benefit of expert advice on all aspects of the scheme through its consultant engineers for the project, Mott, Hay and Anderson. The contractors responsible for the construction of the bridge, the Cementation Construction Company and Cleveland Bridge and Engineering, have worldwide experience in major construction projects. They are advised by Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd. The bridge is designed by Dr. Engineer Helmut Homburg, who has contributed to the development of the cable staybridge type, and has been responsible for the design of a number of cable staybridges, including the Kessoch bridge in Scotland.
When my hon. Friend left his usual high standards was when he started to make jokes about people's names. I am exposed to that kind of joke rather often, and addressed to a fellow member of the European Community it does not go down too well.

Mr. Hicks: My hon. Friend should be careful about this point. When criticising the civil servant whom he so rightly defended, I was only using criticism that is already clearly in the minutes of the Select Committee.

Mr. Bottomley: I had not got on to dealing with what my hon. Friend said about an individually named civil servant. I was dealing with who was advising the Department and who was advising the concessionaires ad the people who designed the bridge. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
Mr. Selby, the project manager, reports to his director, who is an expert bridge engineer. Mr. Selby has served the Department well for 19 years, and I and the Department have every confidence in him, and I shall return to defend him if he is further attacked about the design of bridges. Bridge design concerns bridge designers, and they were reasonably well represented in the Select Committee.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister said that it was always the Government's intention to listen carefully to the evidence. In that case, will he comment on the report in the Financial Times on 15 December last year, long before the Standing Committee sat, which said:
Parliament and politics: Bridge wind shield plan faces block. The Government is prepared, if necessary, to override any proposal by the cross-party Select Committee on the Dartford-Thurrock crossing that the planned bridge over the Thames should have a special wind shield.

It seems pretty clear that the Government leaks had made it well known to the press that they were going to block the wind shield proposal whatever happened.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands a word that he has read out. If I were the one who was recommending the decision to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I did not take that decision until after the further work and at the conclusion of the Standing Committee, any leak must have come from a very ropey old bucket.
The hon. Members for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) put forward arguments. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West said that we needed to show more respect for the Select Committee's conclusions. We have shown that respect in our response, I have shown it in my speech and it is shown in the further work that was commissioned. Design, finance and building contracts can work only if the design is safe. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am convinced that if the Government were to design, finance and build the bridge we would reach the same conclusion as we are recommending to the House tonight. I recommend that the House accepts the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 44.

Division No. 191]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Amess, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Amos, Alan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
French, Douglas


Atkinson, David
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gardiner, George


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hanley, Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harris, David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, John
Janman, Tim


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp;Spald'g)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fearn, Ronald
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Peter






Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lord, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Raffan, Keith


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Redwood, John


Maclean, David
Rhodes James, Robert


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Riddick, Graham


Mans, Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Miller, Hal
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Summerson, Hugo


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Yeo, Tim


Paice, James



Patnick, Irvine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Pawsey, James
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lewis, Terry


Boyes, Roland
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Caborn, Richard
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michael, Alun


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dewar, Donald
Morgan, Rhodri


Dicks, Terry
Mullin, Chris


Dixon, Don
Parry, Robert


Dover, Den
Patchett, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Pike, Peter L.


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flynn, Paul
Reid, Dr John


Galbraith, Sam
Ruddock, Joan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Stott, Roger


Haynes, Frank
Wareing, Robert N.


Hinchliffe, David



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Ted Garrett and


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question according agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Little Campaign

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Ted Garrett: I do not intend to delay the House unduly, but I should like to raise a matter that has been raised on many occasions — the problem of litter, including litter disposal and litter as a public nuisance. Sir Rupert Speir, who represented the constituency of Hexham, was successful with the private Member's Bill on this subject. Regrettably, the provisions of his Litter Act 1958 have not been implemented and are not being implemented today. We are all aware that the Prime Minister is deeply concerned about this matter and, on two occasions in recent months, she has made the problem of tackling the nation's litter a main issue, but so far without success.
We can undoubtedly claim to be the dirtiest country in Europe. That is not much to brag about. We must recognise that litter is a national problem. Litter is basically rubbish. If people thought about litter as rubbish, they would put it in a bin or in a proper place, but they put rubbish in the wrong place and it becomes litter. Litter is a problem to every authority in the United Kingdom and it causes them great concern, as they must deal with it.
I refer the Minister to a recent study by the industry council for the packaging industry. In a series of surveys over the past years, it has concluded that the public are showing more awareness of the scale of the problem than they did five years ago. The public are becoming more aware of the worsening situation, but, regrettably, they frequently display their indifference.
As we well know, local authority staffing levels have been cut. As fewer resources are available, there are fewer people and machines to tackle the problem.
However much local authorities do, the root of the problem is the attitude of the public. Although the public show some concern about the matter, we must recognise that there is massive indifference. We have all met people from time to time who moan about litter and who are ashamed of the filth in their area, but they do not do much about it. They do not seem to protest to councillors or form action groups or write to the local papers. They just sit back in the squalor that surrounds them.
Fortunately, I represent a part of north Tyneside, which I share with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). We have a success story to tell. In north Tyneside, the problem has been tackled vigorously by the council. It has given responsibility to the environmental committee and the parks and recreation committee, the chairmen and officers of which have played an important role in keeping the standards in Tyne and Wear exceptionally high.
On my visit to the north-east last weekend, I could not help but notice how clean the streets were. It was a Saturday afternoon when people were shopping and the streets had been in use most of the day, but they were spotless. I was proud of Tyne and Wear, particularly north Tyneside. I was proud to see such an area, which has got rid of its dereliction problems and some of its environmental problems through the decline of coal, shipbuilding and steel. The worst aspects of those industrial eyesores have disappeared and people are tackling improvements to their environment with renewed vigour.
I should like the Minister to go to north Tyneside in a few weeks' time, where he will see a massive spring floral display which equals, if not surpasses, anything to be found in the rest of the country. It is being done by local effort and must be seen to he believed. It is really beautiful.
The council has won quite a few national competitions which have been sponsored by various organisations. Representatives of the staff on the council have come to the Palace of Westminster to receive awards and a residents' association received an award last year.
We want other parts of the United Kingdom to try to follow our example. I should like the Prime Minister to come to Tyneside, especially north Tyneside, to see what can be done. If it can maintain high standards, why cannot the capital city? It must be an amazing experience for foreigners who visit London for the first time to arrive at Heathrow or Gatwick airport, for example, which are spotless, or to arrive at one of our mainline stations where the concourses are kept at a high level of cleanliness due to the efforts of British Rail and then step outside to see litter on every street, every corner and on railway embankments, and apathy about it all. I am appalled at the filth to be found in some parts of London. We can think of areas where valiant efforts have been made, but I regret to say that other areas are a sad story.
I live in north London when Parliament is in session. Anyone who goes down Camden high street or Kentish Town road tonight will see filth and plastic bags piled up by the side of the road. Some bags are split and when the city goes to sleep, cats, rats and dogs will scratch them open, thus creating all the ingredients of a disease which could strike London.
I cannot understand why allegedly responsible people, instead of keeping the plastic bags on their premises until collection, leave them out. I dare say that the same thing can be seen within 200 yd of this building. It must be caused by a breakdown in communications between the local authorities and the public or by plain ignorance on the part of the public. I fail to see why local authorities, encouraged by the Government, do not take a more positive line and explain to people the hazards that they are creating, irrespective of the fact that the poor council refuse collectors must sweep up the mess. I should like the Minister to urge councils to educate people to keep litter indoors until the time of collection.
We have all seen the trails of litter from the entrances of the schools in our areas to the local shops where the school children buy their lunchtime trash—school meals having virtually been abolished—and, coming back after their lunch break, leave another trail of litter. Their parents would not let those children do that in their own houses. Why do they throw litter away instead of keeping it until they go home, or back to school, where they can put it into refuse bins?
The teaching profession has opted out of part of the responsibility. Teachers do not educate children and enforce standards on them. Children should be responsible for their personal litter; they should put it in their pockets or in the school litter bins. Perhaps the problem is part of the general epidemic of indifference that has struck the nation—indifference, in this case, to our surroundings.
Do people who have shops, commercial businesses or even blocks of flats have any responsibility for keeping the pavements and gutters in front of their premises in a tidy condition? If they have no legal responsibility, is it not time that we thought about the matter?
Let me return to the plight that faces our capital. I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Council of Europe, and to see quite a few of the European capitals. I blush with shame when I compare London with the cleanliness of Paris. I note one significant difference. Paris uses water to clean the streets, with hydrants connected to hoses. The rubbish is swilled down the streets to a collecting point. It is a clean and efficient method which saves labour, and also helps to remove any refuse left by dogs. I cannot understand why, when we are so close to a river the size of the Thames, water cannot be harnessed to clean our streets as it is in Paris and other cities.
We must think hard about finding solutions to the problem. In many areas, there is a lack of civic pride. That pride has been dented for a variety of reasons. At one time, people were proud of their cities, towns and villages. Now there is an indifference which I find rather sad, having spent many years on a local authority.
There is also a lack of national pride. We are indifferent to graffiti and litter. We must restore to people's minds the idea of improving their surrounds and conditions. We might give traffic wardens the power to impose on-the-spot fines on litterers. They could combine the jobs of traffic warden and litter warden.
There is no doubt that attitudes must be changed. If there is a return to civic pride, there will be a sense of cleanliness as a nation and then there will be a better response, for example, in tourism. The tourists will return and notice with pride that London has something going for it—that it is smartening itself up and cleaning itself up. If London sets an example, the rest of the country will follow suit. North Tyneside has set the example. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the matter will he given immediate and urgent study.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): It is some time since the House had an opportunity to debate a topic—litter —which affects us all, whether we live in cities, small towns, villages or the countryside. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) on his choice of subject.
We all recognise how unsightly and offensive litter is and how it makes our surroundings less pleasant and, in some cases, even dangerous. Apart from the obvious impact that litter has on our environment, it also costs every one of us money, with public resources having to be expended on clearing up the mess. What makes this situation so appalling is that litter is unnecessary. It does not occur naturally; we create it ourselves through thoughtless actions and careless habits. With consideration and care, it could be avoided.
The Government certainly share the widespread public concern about this issue—a concern which is reflected in my Department's postbag. Quite apart from the natural repugnance all of us feel about living in an untidy environment, it is unpleasant to learn of comments made by visitors from overseas, and by those returning from overseas, which contrast the state of our streets and countryside with those of other countries. The hon. Member for Wallsend referred to such comments. Although I cannot accept that Britain is the dirtiest country in Europe, I agree that we should be the cleanest, and that is the Government's objective.
The problem is not one that the Government alone can solve. The role of the Government in relation to the litter problem is twofold: first, to ensure that the right legislative framework exists to tackle the problem—I think that we have achieved this—and, secondly, to create a climate of opinion in which to foster a change of public attitudes. The question we must ask is: why do people who are clean and tidy in their home become insensitive and inconsiderate in public places? Perhaps it is a feeling that it is someone else's job to clear up the mess— a feeling that "they", whether Government, local authorities, British Rail or whoever, should do something about it.
The ultimate remedy lies in the hands of each individual member of the public—use litter bins, or take rubbish home. In short, do not create litter. That is easy to say but less easy to bring into effect. There are two essential approaches: one via legal constraints, the other via persuasion and education.
Under the Litter Act 1983, it is an offence to drop litter in the open air — with a penalty of a fine up to a maximum of £400. There are about 1,600 prosecutions a year. We have tightened up the law to make enforcement more effective by making it an offence for a suspected litterer not to give his name and address to a police officer on demand. Nevertheless, given the very great pressures on the police, there are problems with enforcement.
For this reason, we are particularly interested in the progress, and, if it is enacted, the eventual operation of the Westminster City Bill, which contains a power to introduce fixed penalties for litter. The city council proposes to use its 50-strong multi-purpose inspectorate to help enforce the measure, under which offenders will be asked to pick up the litter they have dropped. Any who refuse to do so will be issued with a fixed penalty ticket, to be paid within 14 days. The Government have given this Bill a fair wind and, if it is enacted, we shall monitor its operation closely with the council. If it is successful, it may prove to be a suitable model for wider application.
In addition, there are various powers that local authorities, in their capacity as litter authorities, can use if they wish. This is important since, although the problem is often described as a national one, it does vary from locality to locality. Thus, local authorities may, if they decide to give the matter appropriate priority, appoint litter wardens for their areas. A number have already done so.

Mr. Garrett: Will litter wardens have the same powers as traffic wardens? Will they have the power to impose on-the-spot fines?

Mr. Chope: No. We have considered the use of traffic wardens to enforce the Litter Act 1983, but the traffic warden service is already hard-pressed nationally to cope with its existing responsibilities to support police efforts to enforce road traffic laws. There is strong pressure for better enforcement of parking restrictions to reduce accidents and to keep traffic moving. It would not be sensible to add to that burden.
On-the-spot fines are often mooted as a simple and effective way of enforcing litter legislation. However, there would be major difficulties — for example, accounting for cash collected; the risk to the police or anyone else carrying substantial amounts of cash; and dealing with offenders who do not have funds available on the spot. For

those reasons we have rejected those ideas. As I said, Westminster city council is seeking to obtain legislative approval for a new approach.
I should like to think that a significant role will also be played by competition for street cleansing when the Local Government Bill becomes an Act. One of the first effects of competition will be to make local authorities set out very clearly what work they want to be done in this service, as in the other services concerned. Clarity of purpose can have nothing but beneficial effects on results achieved.
The second main effect will be to increase the efficiency with which the work is carried out. Perhaps, with more money available as a result of such efficiency gains, the authorities with the worst litter problems will then be able to step up the standard of litter cleaning.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the London borough of Camden. As he will probably know, it is one of the highest spending councils in the country. Despite its high levels of expenditure, it does not seem to be able to cope with the problem of litter, which I am sure most of its residents would regard as a high priority. It is a question not of councils not having the money but of them not giving sufficient priority to resolving the litter problem and not running their refuse collection and street cleansing services as efficiently as many of them could.
The need for voluntary local efforts brings me to the second prong of our approach to the problem. The Government have, for a number of years, supported the Tidy Britain Group, a registered charity formed under the original name of Keep Britain Tidy. In the current year, the group is receiving a grant of £570,000 from the national taxpayer towards its objective of promoting the prevention and control of litter. The group also obtains sponsorship from private sources, and it organises competitions, such as the "Beautiful Britain in Bloom" competition, which is financed by Barratts and the Kentucky Fried Chicken awards and trophies.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, North Tyneside metropolitan borough council has been particularly successful in this competition. The council has reached the finals of the Kentucky Fried Chicken competition every year since its inception, and it won it in 1978, 1983 and 1986. I am pleased to add my congratulations on such efforts. I am sure that many members of the Government, given the opportunity, would be happy to visit North Tyneside and see what gives it such an advantage in those competitions.
The main activities of the Tidy Britain Group are concentrated in two main sectors. First, it has devised a comprehensive litter abatement programme — the community environment programme—which is focused on district and borough councils and trains local authority officers in techniques of litter abatement, by enlisting public support, working with local industry and commerce and with voluntary organisations. I understand that 113 local authorities have so far formally adopted the programme, that 19 are considering its adoption and that nine have partially adopted it. We give every encouragement to local authorities to take up the group's community environment programme. It is inevitable that the results of this approach will take time to come through, but we are encouraged by the results so far.
The second aspect of the group's activity concentrates on education. As part of its education programme, the group has produced a range of learning kits for use in schools, and a youth action pact for youth group activities.
They have proved particularly valuable. They have the twofold benefit of obtaining practical results for today as well as offering a sound investment for society for the future. In addition — I think that it can rightly be considered as part of the educational effort—the group and my Department have co-operated to make a number of short promotional films that we hope the television companies will pick up and use to encourage a more responsible attitude towards litter prevention.
I do not underestimate the role of members of the teaching profession. I am not sure that all schools adopt the attitude of the one at the end of my garden. On a summer's day, after the children have spent a morning in the playground, the head teacher goes out to the playground and says, "Before you go back into school, you must clear up all the litter in the playground." Many of the playgrounds of the schools that I have seen are filled with litter. That is not setting the right example for children at an impressionable age.
The Tidy Britain Group has, at our request, reviewed its strategy and approach, and we are considering with it how to achieve greater effectiveness.
Local authorities clearly have a major part to play, and I hope that others will adopt the same approach as North Tyneside, to which I have already referred. The priority and resources that authorities choose to devote to litter abatement and clearance are for them to decide, but I should like to encourage them to work with the Tidy Britain Group, local businesses and local voluntary groups to tackle the local problems and to promote civic pride.
Business interests can play a major role. For example, the growth of the fast food industry has brought its own

litter problems. Customers are not always as responsible in disposing of food and drink containers as we would wish. The Take-Away Food Federation (UK) Ltd. is therefore to be congratulated on the production of a booklet entitled "Less Litter, Better Business", giving guidance to proprietors of such establishments about the proper disposal of the potential litter that they create.
Drawn up in conjunction with the Tidy Britain Group, the booklet covers such matters as the provision of posters and signs in the premises carrying the anti-litter message, and the provision of litter bins and litter patrols by staff. Adoption of such measures by more proprietors, along with the Tidy Britain Group message on containers, will add to the efforts to educate the public about litter.
A great deal has been and is being done to deal with this unpleasant and unnecessary problem. We, and all sectors of society, must continue to seek ways to strengthen and reinforce our efforts. The Tidy Britain Group has been invited to take a fresh look at its activities and to show how a new impetus can be achieved. We are always ready to receive ideas and suggestions on how the problems can best be tackled.
The hon. Member for Wallsend, in initiating this debate this evening, has made a valuable contribution towards increasing public understanding and awareness. He made it apparent that it is basically a matter of common sense, and there has not been sufficient common sense applied to it by enough people.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.